lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] vhost: better detection of available buffers
From
Date


On 2016年11月15日 11:28, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:16:59AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2016年11月12日 00:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:18:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2016年11月11日 11:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:18:37AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016年11月10日 03:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:38:32PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> We should use vq->last_avail_idx instead of vq->avail_idx in the
>>>>>>>>>>> checking of vhost_vq_avail_empty() since latter is the cached avail
>>>>>>>>>>> index from guest but we want to know if there's pending available
>>>>>>>>>>> buffers in the virtqueue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why is this patch here. Is it related to
>>>>>>>>> batching somehow?
>>>>>>> Yes, we need to know whether or not there's still buffers left in the
>>>>>>> virtqueue, so need to check last_avail_idx. Otherwise, we're checking if
>>>>>>> guest has submitted new buffers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index c6f2d89..fdf4cdf 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ bool vhost_vq_avail_empty(struct vhost_dev *dev, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
>>>>>>>>>>> if (r)
>>>>>>>>>>> return false;
>>>>>>>>>>> - return vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx) == vq->avail_idx;
>>>>>>>>>>> + return vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx) == vq->last_avail_idx;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vhost_vq_avail_empty);
>>>>>>>>> That might be OK for TX but it's probably wrong for RX
>>>>>>>>> where the fact that used != avail does not mean
>>>>>>>>> we have enough space to store the packet.
>>>>>>> Right, but it's no harm since it was just a hint, handle_rx() can handle
>>>>>>> this situation.
>>>>> Means busy polling will cause useless load on the CPU though.
>>>>>
>>>> Right, but,it's not easy to have 100% correct hint here. Needs more thought.
>>> What's wrong with what we have? It polls until value changes.
>>>
>> But as you said, this does not mean (in mergeable cases) we have enough
>> space to store the packet.
> Absolutely but it checks once and then only re-checks after value
> changes again.
>

Since get_rx_bufs() does not get enough buffers, we will wait for the
kick in this case. For busy polling, we probably want to stay in the
busy loop here.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-15 09:00    [W:0.125 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site