[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:18:37 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] vhost: better detection of available buffers
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@...hat.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.
>
> Maybe we should just rename this to vhost_vq_avail_unchanged
> to clarify usage.
>
Ok.
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists