[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305646444.10756.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 08:34:04 -0700
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/6 net-next] vhost: vhost TX zero-copy support
On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 18:28 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Which is the order the descriptors are put on avail ring.
> By design, guest should not depend on used ring entries
> being in order with avail ring (and btw with virtio block,
> they aren't). If it does, it's a bug I think.
Ok, I thought, the order should be maintained.
> > The original code has no problem, because it gets one head and pass
> that
> > head to vhost_add_used one by one once done the copy. So it's in
> > sequence.
> >
> > This issue can easily recreate without zerocopy patch by simply
> changing
> > the order from "head return vhost_get_vq_desc" when passing to
> > vhost_add_used.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Shirley
>
> Ah, did you try that? Could you post this patch pls?
> This seems to imply a bug in guest virtio.
I am creating the patch against net-next for you to test today.
Thanks
Shirley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists