On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:56:58AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 3/20/24 04:22, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:59:23PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > > On 3/19/24 02:59, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > > b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > > index 49299b1f9ec7..7d852811c912 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > > @@ -687,9 +687,15 @@ static inline int virtqueue_add_split(struct
> > > > > virtqueue *_vq,
> > > > > avail = vq->split.avail_idx_shadow & (vq->split.vring.num - 1);
> > > > > vq->split.vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
> > > > > head);
> > > > > - /* Descriptors and available array need to be set before we
> > > > > expose the
> > > > > - * new available array entries. */
> > > > > - virtio_wmb(vq->weak_barriers);
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Descriptors and available array need to be set before we
> > > > > expose
> > > > > + * the new available array entries. virtio_wmb() should be
> > > > > enough
> > > > > + * to ensuere the order theoretically. However, a stronger
> > > > > barrier
> > > > > + * is needed by ARM64. Otherwise, the stale data can be observed
> > > > > + * by the host (vhost). A stronger barrier should work for other
> > > > > + * architectures, but performance loss is expected.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + virtio_mb(false);
> > > > > vq->split.avail_idx_shadow++;
> > > > > vq->split.vring.avail->idx = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
> > > > >
> > > > > vq->split.avail_idx_shadow);
> > > >
> > > > Replacing a DMB with a DSB is _very_ unlikely to be the correct solution
> > > > here, especially when ordering accesses to coherent memory.
> > > >
> > > > In practice, either the larger timing different from the DSB or the fact
> > > > that you're going from a Store->Store barrier to a full barrier is what
> > > > makes things "work" for you. Have you tried, for example, a DMB SY
> > > > (e.g. via __smb_mb()).
> > > >
> > > > We definitely shouldn't take changes like this without a proper
> > > > explanation of what is going on.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your comments, Will.
> > >
> > > Yes, DMB should work for us. However, it seems this instruction has
> > > issues on
> > > NVidia's grace-hopper. It's hard for me to understand how DMB and DSB
> > > works
> > > from hardware level. I agree it's not the solution to replace DMB with DSB
> > > before we fully understand the root cause.
> > >
> > > I tried the possible replacement like below. __smp_mb() can avoid the
> > > issue like
> > > __mb() does. __ndelay(10) can avoid the issue, but __ndelay(9) doesn't.
> > >
> > > static inline int virtqueue_add_split(struct virtqueue *_vq, ...)
> > > {
> > > :
> > > /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx
> > > until they
> > > * do sync). */
> > > avail = vq->split.avail_idx_shadow & (vq->split.vring.num - 1);
> > > vq->split.vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
> > > head);
> > >
> > > /* Descriptors and available array need to be set before we
> > > expose the
> > > * new available array entries. */
> > > // Broken: virtio_wmb(vq->weak_barriers);
> > > // Broken: __dma_mb();
> > > // Work: __mb();
> > > // Work: __smp_mb();
> >
> > It's pretty weird that __dma_mb() is "broken" but __smp_mb() "works". How
> > confident are you in that result?
> >
>
> Yes, __dma_mb() is even stronger than __smp_mb(). I retried the test, showing
> that both __dma_mb() and __smp_mb() work for us. I had too many tests
> yesterday
> and something may have been messed up.
>
> Instruction Hitting times in 10 tests
> ---------------------------------------------
> __smp_wmb() 8
> __smp_mb() 0
> __dma_wmb() 7
> __dma_mb() 0
> __mb() 0
> __wmb() 0
>
> It's strange that __smp_mb() works, but __smp_wmb() fails. It seems we need a
> read barrier here. I will try WRITE_ONCE() + __smp_wmb() as suggested by
> Michael
> in another reply. Will update the result soon.
>
> Thanks,
> Gavin
I think you are wasting the time with these tests. Even if it helps what
does this tell us? Try setting a flag as I suggested elsewhere.
Then check it in vhost.
Or here's another idea - possibly easier. Copy the high bits from index
into ring itself. Then vhost can check that head is synchronized with
index.
Warning: completely untested, not even compiled. But should give you
the idea. If this works btw we should consider making this official in
the spec.
static inline int vhost_get_avail_flags(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
index 6f7e5010a673..79456706d0bd 100644
--- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
+++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
@@ -685,7 +685,8 @@ static inline int virtqueue_add_split(struct virtqueue *_vq,
/* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx until they
* do sync). */
avail = vq->split.avail_idx_shadow & (vq->split.vring.num - 1);
- vq->split.vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev, head);
+ u16 headwithflag = head | (q->split.avail_idx_shadow &
~(vq->split.vring.num - 1));
+ vq->split.vring.avail->ring[avail] = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
headwithflag);
/* Descriptors and available array need to be set before we expose the
* new available array entries. */
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
index 045f666b4f12..bd8f7c763caa 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -1299,8 +1299,15 @@ static inline int vhost_get_avail_idx(struct
vhost_virtqueue *vq,
static inline int vhost_get_avail_head(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
__virtio16 *head, int idx)
{
- return vhost_get_avail(vq, *head,
+ unsigned i = idx;
+ unsigned flag = i & ~(vq->num - 1);
+ unsigned val = vhost_get_avail(vq, *head,
&vq->avail->ring[idx & (vq->num - 1)]);
+ unsigned valflag = val & ~(vq->num - 1);
+
+ WARN_ON(valflag != flag);
+
+ return val & (vq->num - 1);
}
--
MST
