[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c097ba6a-57dd-0330-dfeb-3518dbb34737@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 21:28:51 -0400
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xen.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jgross@...e.com,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano@...reto.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] xen/pvcalls: initialize the module and register the
xenbus backend
On 05/15/2017 04:35 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> The pvcalls backend has one ioworker per cpu: the ioworkers are
> implemented as a cpu bound workqueue, and will deal with the actual
> socket and data ring reads/writes.
>
> ioworkers are global: we only have one set for all the frontends. They
> process requests on their wqs list in order, once they are done with a
> request, they'll remove it from the list. A spinlock is used for
> protecting the list. Each ioworker is bound to a different cpu to
> maximize throughput.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@...reto.com>
> CC: boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
> CC: jgross@...e.com
> ---
> drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> index 2dbf7d8..46a889a 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,26 @@
> #include <xen/xenbus.h>
> #include <xen/interface/io/pvcalls.h>
>
> +struct pvcalls_ioworker {
> + struct work_struct register_work;
> + atomic_t io;
> + struct list_head wqs;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + int num;
> +};
> +
> +struct pvcalls_back_global {
> + struct pvcalls_ioworker *ioworkers;
> + int nr_ioworkers;
> + struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> + struct list_head privs;
> + struct rw_semaphore privs_lock;
Is there a reason why these are called "privs"?
And why are you using a rw semaphore --- I only noticed two instances of
use and both are writes.
> +} pvcalls_back_global;
> +
> +static void pvcalls_back_ioworker(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +}
> +
> static int pvcalls_back_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> const struct xenbus_device_id *id)
> {
> @@ -59,3 +79,47 @@ static int pvcalls_back_uevent(struct xenbus_device *xdev,
> .uevent = pvcalls_back_uevent,
> .otherend_changed = pvcalls_back_changed,
> };
> +
> +static int __init pvcalls_back_init(void)
> +{
> + int ret, i, cpu;
> +
> + if (!xen_domain())
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + ret = xenbus_register_backend(&pvcalls_back_driver);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + init_rwsem(&pvcalls_back_global.privs_lock);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pvcalls_back_global.privs);
> + pvcalls_back_global.wq = alloc_workqueue("pvcalls_io", 0, 0);
> + if (!pvcalls_back_global.wq)
> + goto error;
> + pvcalls_back_global.nr_ioworkers = num_online_cpus();
Should nr_ioworkers be updated on CPU hot(un)plug?
> + pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers = kzalloc(
> + sizeof(*pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers) *
> + pvcalls_back_global.nr_ioworkers, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers)
> + goto error;
> + i = 0;
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].num = i;
> + atomic_set(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].io, 1);
> + spin_lock_init(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].lock);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].wqs);
> + INIT_WORK(&pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers[i].register_work,
> + pvcalls_back_ioworker);
> + i++;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +
> +error:
> + if (pvcalls_back_global.wq)
> + destroy_workqueue(pvcalls_back_global.wq);
> + xenbus_unregister_driver(&pvcalls_back_driver);
> + kfree(pvcalls_back_global.ioworkers);
> + memset(&pvcalls_back_global, 0, sizeof(pvcalls_back_global));
> + return -ENOMEM;
This routine could use more newlines. (and in other patches too)
-boris
> +}
> +module_init(pvcalls_back_init);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists