[dpdk-dev] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring changes
Checks
Commit Message
When performing live migration or memory hot-plugging,
the changes to the device and vrings made by message handler
done independently from vring usage by PMD threads.
This causes for example segfauls during live-migration
with MQ enable, but in general virtually any request
sent by qemu changing the state of device can cause
problems.
These patches fixes all above issues by adding a spinlock
to every vring and requiring message handler to start operation
only after ensuring that all PMD threads related to the divece
are out of critical section accessing the vring data.
Each vring has its own lock in order to not create contention
between PMD threads of different vrings and to prevent
performance degradation by scaling queue pair number.
---
lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h | 1 +
lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c | 8 ++++++++
3 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
Comments
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
> When performing live migration or memory hot-plugging,
> the changes to the device and vrings made by message handler
> done independently from vring usage by PMD threads.
>
> This causes for example segfauls during live-migration
> with MQ enable, but in general virtually any request
> sent by qemu changing the state of device can cause
> problems.
>
> These patches fixes all above issues by adding a spinlock
> to every vring and requiring message handler to start operation
> only after ensuring that all PMD threads related to the divece
> are out of critical section accessing the vring data.
>
> Each vring has its own lock in order to not create contention
> between PMD threads of different vrings and to prevent
> performance degradation by scaling queue pair number.
Hi,
Thanks for the patch! Firstly, I didn't see your SoB.
I'm also more interested to know do you see any performance penalty?
> ---
> lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h | 1 +
> lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c | 8 ++++++++
> 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> index 1cc81c17..812aeccd 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ struct vhost_virtqueue {
> TAILQ_HEAD(, vhost_iotlb_entry) iotlb_list;
> int iotlb_cache_nr;
> TAILQ_HEAD(, vhost_iotlb_entry) iotlb_pending_list;
> + rte_spinlock_t active_lock;
The indentation is broken.
> } __rte_cache_aligned;
> @@ -1356,6 +1361,8 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t queue_id,
> if (dev->features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
> vhost_user_iotlb_rd_unlock(vq);
>
> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->active_lock);
Ditto.
--yliu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victor Kaplansky [mailto:vkaplans@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:56 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie, Tiwei; Tan, Jianfeng;
> vkaplans@redhat.com
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com; Maxime Coquelin
> Subject: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring changes
>
> When performing live migration or memory hot-plugging,
> the changes to the device and vrings made by message handler
> done independently from vring usage by PMD threads.
>
> This causes for example segfauls during live-migration
segfauls ->segfaults?
> with MQ enable, but in general virtually any request
> sent by qemu changing the state of device can cause
> problems.
>
> These patches fixes all above issues by adding a spinlock
> to every vring and requiring message handler to start operation
> only after ensuring that all PMD threads related to the divece
Another typo: divece.
> are out of critical section accessing the vring data.
>
> Each vring has its own lock in order to not create contention
> between PMD threads of different vrings and to prevent
> performance degradation by scaling queue pair number.
Also wonder how much overhead it brings.
Instead of locking each vring, can we just, waiting a while (10us for example) after call destroy_device() callback so that every PMD thread has enough time to skip out the criterial area?
> ---
> lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h | 1 +
> lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 44
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c | 8 ++++++++
> 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> index 1cc81c17..812aeccd 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h
> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ struct vhost_virtqueue {
> TAILQ_HEAD(, vhost_iotlb_entry) iotlb_list;
> int iotlb_cache_nr;
> TAILQ_HEAD(, vhost_iotlb_entry) iotlb_pending_list;
> + rte_spinlock_t active_lock;
> } __rte_cache_aligned;
>
> /* Old kernels have no such macros defined */
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> index f4c7ce46..02a3a7d3 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
> @@ -1190,6 +1190,46 @@ vhost_user_check_and_alloc_queue_pair(struct
> virtio_net *dev, VhostUserMsg *msg)
> return alloc_vring_queue(dev, vring_idx);
> }
>
> +static void
> +vhost_user_lock_all_queue_pairs(struct virtio_net *dev)
> +{
> + unsigned int i = 0;
> + unsigned int vq_num = 0;
> +
> + while (vq_num < dev->nr_vring) {
> + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = dev->virtqueue[i];
> +
> + if (!vq) {
> + i++;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + rte_spinlock_lock(&vq->active_lock);
> + vq_num++;
> + i++;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void
> +vhost_user_unlock_all_queue_pairs(struct virtio_net *dev)
> +{
> + unsigned int i = 0;
> + unsigned int vq_num = 0;
> +
> + while (vq_num < dev->nr_vring) {
> + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = dev->virtqueue[i];
> +
> + if (!vq) {
> + i++;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->active_lock);
> + vq_num++;
> + i++;
> + }
> +}
> +
> int
> vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
> {
> @@ -1241,6 +1281,8 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
> return -1;
> }
>
> + vhost_user_lock_all_queue_pairs(dev);
> +
> switch (msg.request.master) {
> case VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES:
> msg.payload.u64 = vhost_user_get_features(dev);
> @@ -1342,6 +1384,8 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
>
> }
>
> + vhost_user_unlock_all_queue_pairs(dev);
> +
> if (msg.flags & VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY) {
> msg.payload.u64 = !!ret;
> msg.size = sizeof(msg.payload.u64);
> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
> index 6fee16e5..de7e38bb 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> #include <rte_udp.h>
> #include <rte_sctp.h>
> #include <rte_arp.h>
> +#include <rte_spinlock.h>
>
> #include "iotlb.h"
> #include "vhost.h"
> @@ -1180,9 +1181,12 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t
> queue_id,
> }
>
> vq = dev->virtqueue[queue_id];
> +
Remove above blank line.
> if (unlikely(vq->enabled == 0))
> return 0;
>
> + rte_spinlock_lock(&vq->active_lock);
> +
> vq->batch_copy_nb_elems = 0;
>
> if (dev->features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
> @@ -1240,6 +1244,7 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t
> queue_id,
> if (rarp_mbuf == NULL) {
> RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_DATA,
> "Failed to allocate memory for mbuf.\n");
> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->active_lock);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1356,6 +1361,8 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t
> queue_id,
> if (dev->features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
> vhost_user_iotlb_rd_unlock(vq);
>
> + rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->active_lock);
> +
> if (unlikely(rarp_mbuf != NULL)) {
> /*
> * Inject it to the head of "pkts" array, so that switch's mac
> @@ -1366,5 +1373,6 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t
> queue_id,
> i += 1;
> }
>
> +
Remove above blank line.
> return i;
> }
> --
> Victor
On 12/07/2017 10:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Victor Kaplansky [mailto:vkaplans@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:56 PM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie, Tiwei; Tan, Jianfeng;
>> vkaplans@redhat.com
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com; Maxime Coquelin
>> Subject: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring changes
>>
>> When performing live migration or memory hot-plugging,
>> the changes to the device and vrings made by message handler
>> done independently from vring usage by PMD threads.
>>
>> This causes for example segfauls during live-migration
>
> segfauls ->segfaults?
>
>> with MQ enable, but in general virtually any request
>> sent by qemu changing the state of device can cause
>> problems.
>>
>> These patches fixes all above issues by adding a spinlock
>> to every vring and requiring message handler to start operation
>> only after ensuring that all PMD threads related to the divece
>
> Another typo: divece.
>
>> are out of critical section accessing the vring data.
>>
>> Each vring has its own lock in order to not create contention
>> between PMD threads of different vrings and to prevent
>> performance degradation by scaling queue pair number.
>
> Also wonder how much overhead it brings.
>
> Instead of locking each vring, can we just, waiting a while (10us for example) after call destroy_device() callback so that every PMD thread has enough time to skip out the criterial area?
No, because we are not destroying the device when it is needed.
Actually, once destroy_device() is called, it is likely that the
application has taken care the ring aren't being processed anymore
before returning from the callback (This is at least the case with Vhost
PMD).
The reason we need the lock is to protect PMD threads from the handling
of some vhost-user protocol requests.
For example SET_MEM_TABLE in the case of memory hotplug, or SET_LOG_BASE
in case of multiqueue, which is sent for every queue pair and results in
unmapping/remapping the logging area.
Maxime
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 6:02 PM
> To: Tan, Jianfeng; Victor Kaplansky; dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie,
> Tiwei
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring
> changes
>
>
>
> On 12/07/2017 10:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Victor Kaplansky [mailto:vkaplans@redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:56 PM
> >> To: dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie, Tiwei; Tan, Jianfeng;
> >> vkaplans@redhat.com
> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com; Maxime Coquelin
> >> Subject: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring changes
> >>
> >> When performing live migration or memory hot-plugging,
> >> the changes to the device and vrings made by message handler
> >> done independently from vring usage by PMD threads.
> >>
> >> This causes for example segfauls during live-migration
> >
> > segfauls ->segfaults?
> >
> >> with MQ enable, but in general virtually any request
> >> sent by qemu changing the state of device can cause
> >> problems.
> >>
> >> These patches fixes all above issues by adding a spinlock
> >> to every vring and requiring message handler to start operation
> >> only after ensuring that all PMD threads related to the divece
> >
> > Another typo: divece.
> >
> >> are out of critical section accessing the vring data.
> >>
> >> Each vring has its own lock in order to not create contention
> >> between PMD threads of different vrings and to prevent
> >> performance degradation by scaling queue pair number.
> >
> > Also wonder how much overhead it brings.
> >
> > Instead of locking each vring, can we just, waiting a while (10us for example)
> after call destroy_device() callback so that every PMD thread has enough
> time to skip out the criterial area?
>
> No, because we are not destroying the device when it is needed.
> Actually, once destroy_device() is called, it is likely that the
> application has taken care the ring aren't being processed anymore
> before returning from the callback (This is at least the case with Vhost
> PMD).
OK, I did not put it right way as there are multiple cases above: migration and memory hot plug. Let me try again:
Whenever a vhost thread handles a message affecting PMD threads, (like SET_MEM_TABLE, GET_VRING_BASE, etc) we can remove the dev flag - VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING, and wait for a while so that PMD threads skip out of those criterial area. After message handling, reset the flag - VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING.
I suppose it can work, basing on an assumption that PMD threads work in polling mode and can skip criterial area quickly and inevitably.
>
> The reason we need the lock is to protect PMD threads from the handling
> of some vhost-user protocol requests.
> For example SET_MEM_TABLE in the case of memory hotplug, or
> SET_LOG_BASE
> in case of multiqueue, which is sent for every queue pair and results in
> unmapping/remapping the logging area.
Yes, I understand how it fails.
Thanks,
Jianfeng
>
> Maxime
On 12/08/2017 03:14 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 6:02 PM
>> To: Tan, Jianfeng; Victor Kaplansky; dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie,
>> Tiwei
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring
>> changes
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/07/2017 10:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Victor Kaplansky [mailto:vkaplans@redhat.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:56 PM
>>>> To: dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie, Tiwei; Tan, Jianfeng;
>>>> vkaplans@redhat.com
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com; Maxime Coquelin
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring changes
>>>>
>>>> When performing live migration or memory hot-plugging,
>>>> the changes to the device and vrings made by message handler
>>>> done independently from vring usage by PMD threads.
>>>>
>>>> This causes for example segfauls during live-migration
>>>
>>> segfauls ->segfaults?
>>>
>>>> with MQ enable, but in general virtually any request
>>>> sent by qemu changing the state of device can cause
>>>> problems.
>>>>
>>>> These patches fixes all above issues by adding a spinlock
>>>> to every vring and requiring message handler to start operation
>>>> only after ensuring that all PMD threads related to the divece
>>>
>>> Another typo: divece.
>>>
>>>> are out of critical section accessing the vring data.
>>>>
>>>> Each vring has its own lock in order to not create contention
>>>> between PMD threads of different vrings and to prevent
>>>> performance degradation by scaling queue pair number.
>>>
>>> Also wonder how much overhead it brings.
>>>
>>> Instead of locking each vring, can we just, waiting a while (10us for example)
>> after call destroy_device() callback so that every PMD thread has enough
>> time to skip out the criterial area?
>>
>> No, because we are not destroying the device when it is needed.
>> Actually, once destroy_device() is called, it is likely that the
>> application has taken care the ring aren't being processed anymore
>> before returning from the callback (This is at least the case with Vhost
>> PMD).
>
> OK, I did not put it right way as there are multiple cases above: migration and memory hot plug. Let me try again:
>
> Whenever a vhost thread handles a message affecting PMD threads, (like SET_MEM_TABLE, GET_VRING_BASE, etc) we can remove the dev flag - VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING, and wait for a while so that PMD threads skip out of those criterial area. After message handling, reset the flag - VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING.
I think you mean clearing vq's enabled flag, because PMD threads never
check the VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING flag.
> I suppose it can work, basing on an assumption that PMD threads work in polling mode and can skip criterial area quickly and inevitably.
That sounds very fragile, because if the CPU aren't perfectly isolated,
your PMD thread can be preempted for interrupt handling for example.
Or what if for some reason the PMD thread CPU stalls for a short while?
The later is unlikely, but if it happens, it will be hard to debug.
Let's see first the performance impact of using the spinlock. It might
not be that important because 99.9999% of the times, it will not even
spin.
Thanks,
Maxime
>>
>> The reason we need the lock is to protect PMD threads from the handling
>> of some vhost-user protocol requests.
>> For example SET_MEM_TABLE in the case of memory hotplug, or
>> SET_LOG_BASE
>> in case of multiqueue, which is sent for every queue pair and results in
>> unmapping/remapping the logging area.
>
> Yes, I understand how it fails.
>
> Thanks,
> Jianfeng
>
>>
>> Maxime
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 4:36 PM
> To: Tan, Jianfeng; Victor Kaplansky; dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie,
> Tiwei
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring
> changes
>
>
>
> On 12/08/2017 03:14 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 6:02 PM
> >> To: Tan, Jianfeng; Victor Kaplansky; dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org;
> Bie,
> >> Tiwei
> >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring
> >> changes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/07/2017 10:33 AM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Victor Kaplansky [mailto:vkaplans@redhat.com]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 9:56 PM
> >>>> To: dev@dpdk.org; yliu@fridaylinux.org; Bie, Tiwei; Tan, Jianfeng;
> >>>> vkaplans@redhat.com
> >>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; jfreiman@redhat.com; Maxime Coquelin
> >>>> Subject: [PATCH] vhost_user: protect active rings from async ring
> changes
> >>>>
> >>>> When performing live migration or memory hot-plugging,
> >>>> the changes to the device and vrings made by message handler
> >>>> done independently from vring usage by PMD threads.
> >>>>
> >>>> This causes for example segfauls during live-migration
> >>>
> >>> segfauls ->segfaults?
> >>>
> >>>> with MQ enable, but in general virtually any request
> >>>> sent by qemu changing the state of device can cause
> >>>> problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> These patches fixes all above issues by adding a spinlock
> >>>> to every vring and requiring message handler to start operation
> >>>> only after ensuring that all PMD threads related to the divece
> >>>
> >>> Another typo: divece.
> >>>
> >>>> are out of critical section accessing the vring data.
> >>>>
> >>>> Each vring has its own lock in order to not create contention
> >>>> between PMD threads of different vrings and to prevent
> >>>> performance degradation by scaling queue pair number.
> >>>
> >>> Also wonder how much overhead it brings.
> >>>
> >>> Instead of locking each vring, can we just, waiting a while (10us for
> example)
> >> after call destroy_device() callback so that every PMD thread has enough
> >> time to skip out the criterial area?
> >>
> >> No, because we are not destroying the device when it is needed.
> >> Actually, once destroy_device() is called, it is likely that the
> >> application has taken care the ring aren't being processed anymore
> >> before returning from the callback (This is at least the case with Vhost
> >> PMD).
> >
> > OK, I did not put it right way as there are multiple cases above: migration
> and memory hot plug. Let me try again:
> >
> > Whenever a vhost thread handles a message affecting PMD threads, (like
> SET_MEM_TABLE, GET_VRING_BASE, etc) we can remove the dev flag -
> VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING, and wait for a while so that PMD threads skip out of
> those criterial area. After message handling, reset the flag -
> VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING.
>
> I think you mean clearing vq's enabled flag, because PMD threads never
> check the VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING flag.
Ah, yes.
>
> > I suppose it can work, basing on an assumption that PMD threads work in
> polling mode and can skip criterial area quickly and inevitably.
>
> That sounds very fragile, because if the CPU aren't perfectly isolated,
> your PMD thread can be preempted for interrupt handling for example.
>
> Or what if for some reason the PMD thread CPU stalls for a short while?
>
> The later is unlikely, but if it happens, it will be hard to debug.
>
> Let's see first the performance impact of using the spinlock. It might
> not be that important because 99.9999% of the times, it will not even
> spin.
Fair enough.
Thanks,
Jianfeng
>
> Thanks,
> Maxime
>
> >>
> >> The reason we need the lock is to protect PMD threads from the handling
> >> of some vhost-user protocol requests.
> >> For example SET_MEM_TABLE in the case of memory hotplug, or
> >> SET_LOG_BASE
> >> in case of multiqueue, which is sent for every queue pair and results in
> >> unmapping/remapping the logging area.
> >
> > Yes, I understand how it fails.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jianfeng
> >
> >>
> >> Maxime
@@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ struct vhost_virtqueue {
TAILQ_HEAD(, vhost_iotlb_entry) iotlb_list;
int iotlb_cache_nr;
TAILQ_HEAD(, vhost_iotlb_entry) iotlb_pending_list;
+ rte_spinlock_t active_lock;
} __rte_cache_aligned;
/* Old kernels have no such macros defined */
@@ -1190,6 +1190,46 @@ vhost_user_check_and_alloc_queue_pair(struct virtio_net *dev, VhostUserMsg *msg)
return alloc_vring_queue(dev, vring_idx);
}
+static void
+vhost_user_lock_all_queue_pairs(struct virtio_net *dev)
+{
+ unsigned int i = 0;
+ unsigned int vq_num = 0;
+
+ while (vq_num < dev->nr_vring) {
+ struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = dev->virtqueue[i];
+
+ if (!vq) {
+ i++;
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ rte_spinlock_lock(&vq->active_lock);
+ vq_num++;
+ i++;
+ }
+}
+
+static void
+vhost_user_unlock_all_queue_pairs(struct virtio_net *dev)
+{
+ unsigned int i = 0;
+ unsigned int vq_num = 0;
+
+ while (vq_num < dev->nr_vring) {
+ struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = dev->virtqueue[i];
+
+ if (!vq) {
+ i++;
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->active_lock);
+ vq_num++;
+ i++;
+ }
+}
+
int
vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
{
@@ -1241,6 +1281,8 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
return -1;
}
+ vhost_user_lock_all_queue_pairs(dev);
+
switch (msg.request.master) {
case VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES:
msg.payload.u64 = vhost_user_get_features(dev);
@@ -1342,6 +1384,8 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
}
+ vhost_user_unlock_all_queue_pairs(dev);
+
if (msg.flags & VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY) {
msg.payload.u64 = !!ret;
msg.size = sizeof(msg.payload.u64);
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
#include <rte_udp.h>
#include <rte_sctp.h>
#include <rte_arp.h>
+#include <rte_spinlock.h>
#include "iotlb.h"
#include "vhost.h"
@@ -1180,9 +1181,12 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t queue_id,
}
vq = dev->virtqueue[queue_id];
+
if (unlikely(vq->enabled == 0))
return 0;
+ rte_spinlock_lock(&vq->active_lock);
+
vq->batch_copy_nb_elems = 0;
if (dev->features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
@@ -1240,6 +1244,7 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t queue_id,
if (rarp_mbuf == NULL) {
RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_DATA,
"Failed to allocate memory for mbuf.\n");
+ rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->active_lock);
return 0;
}
@@ -1356,6 +1361,8 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t queue_id,
if (dev->features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_IOMMU_PLATFORM))
vhost_user_iotlb_rd_unlock(vq);
+ rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->active_lock);
+
if (unlikely(rarp_mbuf != NULL)) {
/*
* Inject it to the head of "pkts" array, so that switch's mac
@@ -1366,5 +1373,6 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t queue_id,
i += 1;
}
+
return i;
}