> From: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:54 AM > To: Dan Jurgens <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jiri Pirko > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 0/6] Remove RTNL lock protection of CVQ > > On Tue, 2024-04-23 at 06:57 +0300, Daniel Jurgens wrote: > > Currently the buffer used for control VQ commands is protected by the > > RTNL lock. Previously this wasn't a major concern because the control > > VQ was only used during device setup and user interaction. With the > > recent addition of dynamic interrupt moderation the control VQ may be > > used frequently during normal operation. > > > > This series removes the RNTL lock dependency by introducing a mutex to > > protect the control buffer and writing SGs to the control VQ. > > > > v5: > > - Changed cvq_lock to a mutex. > > - Changed dim_lock to mutex, because it's held taking > > the cvq_lock. > > - Use spin/mutex_lock/unlock vs guard macros. > > v4: > > - Protect dim_enabled with same lock as well intr_coal. > > - Rename intr_coal_lock to dim_lock. > > - Remove some scoped_guard where the error path doesn't > > have to be in the lock. > > v3: > > - Changed type of _offloads to __virtio16 to fix static > > analysis warning. > > - Moved a misplaced hunk to the correct patch. > > v2: > > - New patch to only process the provided queue in > > virtnet_dim_work > > - New patch to lock per queue rx coalescing structure. > > I had only some minor comments, possibly overall worth another iteration. > > More importantly, this deserves an explicit ack from the virtio crew. > @Jason, @Michael: could you please have a look?
Thanks for the review, Paolo. I'll give Jaso and Michael a chance to respond before sending again to address your comments. > > Thanks! > > Paolo
