Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/9] Fixes for vhost metadata acceleration

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:08:22 -0400

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 04:12:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/8/12 下午5:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:44:51AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2019/8/11 上午1:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 01:48:42AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > Hi all:
> > > > > 
> > > > > This series try to fix several issues introduced by meta data
> > > > > accelreation series. Please review.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes from V4:
> > > > > - switch to use spinlock synchronize MMU notifier with accessors
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes from V3:
> > > > > - remove the unnecessary patch
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes from V2:
> > > > > - use seqlck helper to synchronize MMU notifier with vhost worker
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes from V1:
> > > > > - try not use RCU to syncrhonize MMU notifier with vhost worker
> > > > > - set dirty pages after no readers
> > > > > - return -EAGAIN only when we find the range is overlapped with
> > > > >     metadata
> > > > > 
> > > > > Jason Wang (9):
> > > > >     vhost: don't set uaddr for invalid address
> > > > >     vhost: validate MMU notifier registration
> > > > >     vhost: fix vhost map leak
> > > > >     vhost: reset invalidate_count in vhost_set_vring_num_addr()
> > > > >     vhost: mark dirty pages during map uninit
> > > > >     vhost: don't do synchronize_rcu() in vhost_uninit_vq_maps()
> > > > >     vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker
> > > > >     vhost: correctly set dirty pages in MMU notifiers callback
> > > > >     vhost: do not return -EAGAIN for non blocking invalidation too early
> > > > > 
> > > > >    drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > > > >    drivers/vhost/vhost.h |   6 +-
> > > > >    2 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
> > > > This generally looks more solid.
> > > > 
> > > > But this amounts to a significant overhaul of the code.
> > > > 
> > > > At this point how about we revert 7f466032dc9e5a61217f22ea34b2df932786bbfc
> > > > for this release, and then re-apply a corrected version
> > > > for the next one?
> > > 
> > > If possible, consider we've actually disabled the feature. How about just
> > > queued those patches for next release?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > Sorry if I was unclear. My idea is that
> > 1. I revert the disabled code
> > 2. You send a patch readding it with all the fixes squashed
> > 3. Maybe optimizations on top right away?
> > 4. We queue *that* for next and see what happens.
> > 
> > And the advantage over the patchy approach is that the current patches
> > are hard to review. E.g.  it's not reasonable to ask RCU guys to review
> > the whole of vhost for RCU usage but it's much more reasonable to ask
> > about a specific patch.
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I agree to revert.
> 
> Thanks

Great, so please send the following:
- revert
- squashed and fixed patch

-- 
MST