[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0cd1806-22d1-8197-50dc-b63a43f33807@kaspersky.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 17:48:19 +0300
From: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@...are.com>,
Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@....net>,
Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@...zon.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stsp2@...dex.ru" <stsp2@...dex.ru>,
"oxffffaa@...il.com" <oxffffaa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 19/19] af_vsock: serialize writes to shared socket
On 13.05.2021 17:46, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 04:01:50PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 07:37:35PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>> This add logic, that serializes write access to single socket
>>> by multiple threads. It is implemented be adding field with TID
>>> of current writer. When writer tries to send something, it checks
>>> that field is -1(free), else it sleep in the same way as waiting
>>> for free space at peers' side.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@...persky.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/net/af_vsock.h | 1 +
>>> net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> I think you forgot to move this patch at the beginning of the series.
>> It's important because in this way we can backport to stable branches
>> easily.
>>
>> About the implementation, can't we just add a mutex that we hold until
>> we have sent all the payload?
> Re-thinking, I guess we can't because we have the timeout to deal
> with...
Yes, i forgot about why i've implemented it using 'tid_owner' :)
>
>> I need to check other implementations like TCP.
>>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists