On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:15:48AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > On 03/14/2018 10:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 02:03:19PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > On 03/14/2018 10:53 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:43:01AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > > > On 03/14/2018 12:49 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:34:24PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.w...@intel.com> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Liang Li <liang.z...@intel.com> > > > > > > > CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > CC: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > CC: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> > > > > > > I find it suspicious that neither unrealize nor reset > > > > > > functions have been touched at all. > > > > > > Are you sure you have thought through scenarious like > > > > > > hot-unplug or disabling the device by guest? > > > > > OK. I think we can call balloon_free_page_stop in unrealize and reset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static void *virtio_balloon_poll_free_page_hints(void *opaque) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + VirtQueueElement *elem; > > > > > > + VirtIOBalloon *dev = opaque; > > > > > > + VirtQueue *vq = dev->free_page_vq; > > > > > > + uint32_t id; > > > > > > + size_t size; > > > > > > What makes it safe to poke at this device from multiple threads? > > > > > > I think that it would be safer to do it from e.g. BH. > > > > > > > > > > > Actually the free_page_optimization thread is the only user of > > > > > free_page_vq, > > > > > and there is only one optimization thread each time. Would this be > > > > > safe > > > > > enough? > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Wei > > > > Aren't there other fields there? Also things like reset affect all VQs. > > > > > > > Yes. But I think BHs are used to avoid re-entrancy, which isn't the issue > > > here. > > Since you are adding locks to address the issue - doesn't this imply > > reentrancy is exactly the issue? > > Not really. The lock isn't intended for any reentrancy issues, since there > will be only one run of the virtio_balloon_poll_free_page_hints function at > any given time. Instead, the lock is used to synchronize > virtio_balloon_poll_free_page_hints and virtio_balloon_free_page_stop to > access dev->free_page_report_status.
I wonder whether that's enough. E.g. is there a race with guest trying to reset the device? That resets all VQs you know. > Please see the whole picture below: > > virtio_balloon_poll_free_page_hints() > { > > while (1) { > qemu_spin_lock(); > if (dev->free_page_report_status >= FREE_PAGE_REPORT_S_STOP || > !runstate_is_running()) { > qemu_spin_unlock(); > break; > } > ... > if (id == dev->free_page_report_cmd_id) { > ==> dev->free_page_report_status = FREE_PAGE_REPORT_S_START; > ... > qemu_spin_unlock(); > } > } > > > static void virtio_balloon_free_page_stop(void *opaque) > { > VirtIOBalloon *s = opaque; > VirtIODevice *vdev = VIRTIO_DEVICE(s); > > qemu_spin_lock(); > ... > ==> s->free_page_report_status = FREE_PAGE_REPORT_S_STOP; > ... > qemu_spin_unlock(); > } > > > Without the lock, there are theoretical possibilities that assigning STOP > below is overridden by START above. In that > case,virtio_balloon_free_page_stop does not effectively stop > virtio_balloon_poll_free_page_hints. > I think this issue couldn't be solved by BHs. > > Best, > Wei Don't all BHs run under the BQL?