[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080419163322.GA17089@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:33:22 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] /dev/vring: simple userspace-kernel ringbuffer interface.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 02:05:31AM +1000, Rusty Russell (rusty@...tcorp.com.au) wrote:
> > Should this whole function and vring_used_buffer() be protected with
> > vr->lock mutex?
>
> No; it's up to the caller to make sure that they are serialized. In the case
> of tun that happens naturally.
>
> There are two reasons not to grab the lock. It turns out that if we tried to
> lock here, we'd deadlock, since the callbacks are called under the lock.
> Secondly, it's possible to implement an atomic vring_used_buffer variant,
> which could fail: this would avoid using the thread most of the time.
Yep, I decided that too. But it limits its usage to tun only or any
other system where only single thread picks up results, so no generic
userspace ring buffers?
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists