[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100509210652.GB21338@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:06:52 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into ring itself
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 01:03:28PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 03:49:46 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Now, I also added an mb() in guest between read and write so
> > that last used index write can not get ahead of used index read.
> > It does feel good to have it there, but I can not say why
> > it's helpful. Works fine without it, but then these
> > subtle races might be hard to trigger. What do you think?
>
> I couldn't see that in the patch? I don't think it's necessary
> though, since the write of depends last_used depends on the read of
> used (and no platform we care about would reorder such a thing).
Well, there's no data dependency, is there?
> I'm reasonably happy, but we should write some convenient test for
> missing interrupts.
>
> I'm thinking of a sender which does a loop: blasts 1MB of UDP packets,
> then prints the time and sleep(1). The receiver would print the time
> every 1MB of received data. The two times should almost exactly correspond.
>
> Assuming that the network doesn't overflow and lose stuff, this should
> identify any missing wakeup/interrupts (depending on direction used).
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
--
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