On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 07:10:46PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> The L4 sequence arrays tap4_l4[] and tap6_l4[] are used to batch
> packets with the same L4 tuple within a single tap_handler() call.
> They are global, but tap_handler() can be called concurrently from
> different worker threads with different qpairs in vhost-user mode.
> 
> Make these arrays per-qpair by adding a VHOST_USER_MAX_VQS/2 first
> dimension, indexed by the qpair parameter already available in
> tap4_handler() and tap6_handler().
> 
> Update tap_sock_update_pool() to initialize all qpair*seq entries.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>

Generally LGTM.  Couple of nits and one broader design thought.

> ---
>  tap.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tap.c b/tap.c
> index 80912372e216..659df9d560d3 100644
> --- a/tap.c
> +++ b/tap.c
> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static struct tap4_l4_t {
>  	struct in_addr daddr;
>  
>  	struct pool_l4_t p;
> -} tap4_l4[TAP_SEQS /* Arbitrary: TAP_MSGS in theory, so limit in users */];
> +} tap4_l4[VHOST_USER_MAX_VQS / 2][TAP_SEQS /* Arbitrary: TAP_MSGS in theory, so limit in users */];

Nit: VHOST_USER_MAX_VQS is being used often enough for sizing data
structures that we might want a new #define for it.

As in 1/8, I think an explicit cacheline alignment would be a good
idea here too.

>  /**
>   * struct l4_seq6_t - Message sequence for one protocol handler call, IPv6
> @@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ static struct tap6_l4_t {
>  	uint8_t hop_limit;
>  
>  	struct pool_l4_t p;
> -} tap6_l4[TAP_SEQS /* Arbitrary: TAP_MSGS in theory, so limit in users */];
> +} tap6_l4[VHOST_USER_MAX_VQS / 2][TAP_SEQS /* Arbitrary: TAP_MSGS in theory, so limit in users */];

Ditto.

Also... maybe this would be more trouble for a first pass.  But we're
introducing a bunch of parallel per-qpair arrays.  I'm wondering if it
might be nicer to instead gather all the per-qpair structures together
into a struct qpair_ctx or struct qpair_tap_ctx.  Couple of advantages
I can see (neither of which are must haves on their own):
 * Clearer to describe the locking semantics ("none, because it's
   thread private") for a single big structure than parallel slices of
   a whole bunch of other structures
 * Might give better memory locality for each thread

>  /**
>   * tap_packet_debug() - Print debug message for packet(s) from guest/tap
> @@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ resume:
>  		if (seq_count == TAP_SEQS)
>  			break;	/* Resume after flushing if i < pool_tap4[qpair]->count */
>  
> -		for (seq = tap4_l4 + seq_count - 1; seq >= tap4_l4; seq--) {
> +		for (seq = tap4_l4[qpair] + seq_count - 1; seq >= tap4_l4[qpair]; seq--) {
>  			if (L4_MATCH(iph, uh, seq)) {
>  				if (seq->p.count >= UIO_MAXIOV)
>  					seq = NULL;
> @@ -849,8 +849,8 @@ resume:
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> -		if (!seq || seq < tap4_l4) {
> -			seq = tap4_l4 + seq_count++;
> +		if (!seq || seq < tap4_l4[qpair]) {
> +			seq = tap4_l4[qpair] + seq_count++;
>  			L4_SET(iph, uh, seq);
>  			pool_flush((struct pool *)&seq->p);
>  		}
> @@ -862,7 +862,7 @@ append:
>  		packet_add((struct pool *)&seq->p, &data);
>  	}
>  
> -	for (j = 0, seq = tap4_l4; j < seq_count; j++, seq++) {
> +	for (j = 0, seq = tap4_l4[qpair]; j < seq_count; j++, seq++) {
>  		const struct pool *p = (const struct pool *)&seq->p;
>  		size_t k;
>  
> @@ -1089,7 +1089,7 @@ resume:
>  		if (seq_count == TAP_SEQS)
>  			break;	/* Resume after flushing if i < pool_tap6[qpair]->count */
>  
> -		for (seq = tap6_l4 + seq_count - 1; seq >= tap6_l4; seq--) {
> +		for (seq = tap6_l4[qpair] + seq_count - 1; seq >= tap6_l4[qpair]; seq--) {
>  			if (L4_MATCH(ip6h, proto, uh, seq)) {
>  				if (seq->p.count >= UIO_MAXIOV)
>  					seq = NULL;
> @@ -1097,8 +1097,8 @@ resume:
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> -		if (!seq || seq < tap6_l4) {
> -			seq = tap6_l4 + seq_count++;
> +		if (!seq || seq < tap6_l4[qpair]) {
> +			seq = tap6_l4[qpair] + seq_count++;
>  			L4_SET(ip6h, proto, uh, seq);
>  			pool_flush((struct pool *)&seq->p);
>  		}
> @@ -1110,7 +1110,7 @@ append:
>  		packet_add((struct pool *)&seq->p, &data);
>  	}
>  
> -	for (j = 0, seq = tap6_l4; j < seq_count; j++, seq++) {
> +	for (j = 0, seq = tap6_l4[qpair]; j < seq_count; j++, seq++) {
>  		const struct pool *p = (const struct pool *)&seq->p;
>  		size_t k;
>  
> @@ -1607,9 +1607,15 @@ static void tap_sock_update_pool(void *base, size_t size)
>  		pool_tap6[i] = (struct pool *)&pool_tap6_storage[i];
>  	}
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < TAP_SEQS; i++) {
> -		tap4_l4[i].p = PACKET_INIT(pool_l4, UIO_MAXIOV, base, size);
> -		tap6_l4[i].p = PACKET_INIT(pool_l4, UIO_MAXIOV, base, size);
> +	for (i = 0; i < VHOST_USER_MAX_VQS / 2; i++) {
> +		unsigned int j;
> +
> +		for (j = 0; j < TAP_SEQS; j++) {
> +			tap4_l4[i][j].p = PACKET_INIT(pool_l4, UIO_MAXIOV,
> +						      base, size);
> +			tap6_l4[i][j].p = PACKET_INIT(pool_l4, UIO_MAXIOV,
> +						      base, size);
> +		}
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.54.0
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson