Il mer 19 feb 2020, 18:58 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> ha scritto:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:09:48PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Really a great idea, though I have some remarks on the implementation
> below.
> >
> > On 19/02/20 11:00, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > + * Each aio_bh_poll() call carves off a slice of the BH list. This
> way newly
> > > + * scheduled BHs are not processed until the next aio_bh_poll()
> call. This
> > > + * concept extends to nested aio_bh_poll() calls because slices are
> chained
> > > + * together.
> >
> > This is the tricky part so I would expand a bit on why it's needed:
> >
> > /*
> > * Each aio_bh_poll() call carves off a slice of the BH list, so that
> > * newly scheduled BHs are not processed until the next aio_bh_poll()
> > * call. All active aio_bh_poll() calls chained their slices together
> > * in a list, so that nested aio_bh_poll() calls process all scheduled
> > * bottom halves.
> > */
>
> Thanks, will fix in v2.
>
> > > +struct BHListSlice {
> > > + QEMUBH *first_bh;
> > > + BHListSlice *next;
> > > +};
> > > +
> >
> > Using QLIST and QSLIST removes the need to create your own lists, since
> > you can use QSLIST_MOVE_ATOMIC and QSLIST_INSERT_HEAD_ATOMIC. For
> example:
> >
> > struct BHListSlice {
> > QSLIST_HEAD(, QEMUBH) first_bh;
> > QLIST_ENTRY(BHListSlice) next;
> > };
> >
> > ...
> >
> > QSLIST_HEAD(, QEMUBH) active_bh;
> > QLIST_HEAD(, BHListSlice) bh_list;
>
> I thought about this but chose the explicit tail pointer approach
> because it lets aio_compute_timeout() and aio_ctx_check() iterate over
> both the active BH list and slices in a single for loop :). But
> thinking about it more, maybe it can still be done by replacing
> active_bh with a permanently present first BHListSlice element.
>
Probably not so easy since the idea was to empty the slices list entirely
via the FIFO order.
But since you are rewriting everything anyway, can you add a flag for
whether there are any non-idle bottom halves anywhere in the list? It need
not be computed perfectly, because any non-idle bh will cause the idle
bottom halves to be triggered as well; you can just set in qemu_bh_schedule
and clear it at the end of aio_bh_poll.
Then if there is any active bh or slice you consult the flag and use it to
return the timeout, which will be either 0 or 10ms depending on the flag.
That's truly O(1). (More precisely, this patch goes from O(#created-bh) to
O(#scheduled-bh), which of course is optimal for aio_bh_poll but not for
aio_compute_timeout; making timeout computation O(1) can lower latency a
bit by decreasing the constant factor).
Paolo
> >
> > Related to this, in the aio_bh_poll() loop:
> >
> > for (s = ctx->bh_list.next; s; s = s->next) {
> > }
> >
> > You can actually do the removal inside the loop. This is slightly more
> > efficient since you can remove slices early from the nested
> > aio_bh_poll(). Not that it's relevant for performance, but I think the
> > FIFO order for slices is also more intuitive than LIFO.
> >
> > Putting this idea together with the QLIST one, you would get:
> >
> > /*
> > * If a bottom half causes a recursive call, this slice will be
> > * removed by the nested aio_bh_poll().
> > */
> > QSLIST_MOVE_ATOMIC(&slice.first_bh, ctx->active_bh);
> > QLIST_INSERT_TAIL(&ctx->bh_list, slice);
> > while ((s = QLIST_FIRST(&ctx->bh_list)) {
> > while ((bh = aio_bh_dequeue(&s, &flags))) {
> > }
> > QLIST_REMOVE_HEAD(s, next);
> > }
>
> Cool, reusing "queue.h" is nice.
>
> >
> > > /* Multiple occurrences of aio_bh_poll cannot be called concurrently.
> > > * The count in ctx->list_lock is incremented before the call, and is
> > > * not affected by the call.
> >
> > The second sentence is now stale.
>
> Thanks, will fix in v2.
>
> Stefan
>
