[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BE9AF9A.8080005@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:27:22 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into
ring itself
On 05/07/2010 06:23 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 07:30:00 pm Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2010 11:58 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> + /* We publish the last-seen used index at the end of the available ring.
>>> + * It is at the end for backwards compatibility. */
>>> + vr->last_used_idx =&(vr)->avail->ring[num];
>>> + /* Verify that last used index does not spill over the used ring. */
>>> + BUG_ON((void *)vr->last_used_idx +
>>> + sizeof *vr->last_used_idx> (void *)vr->used);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> Shouldn't this be on its own cache line?
>>
> It's next to the available ring; because that's where the guest publishes
> its data. That whole page is guest-write, host-read.
>
> Putting it on a cacheline by itself would be a slight pessimization; the host
> cpu would have to get the last_used_idx cacheline and the avail descriptor
> cacheline every time. This way, they are sometimes the same cacheline.
>
If one peer writes the tail of the available ring, while the other reads
last_used_idx, it's a false bounce, no?
Having things on the same cacheline is only worthwhile if they are
accessed at the same time.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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