[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ucmekzurgt3zcaezzdkk6277ukjmwaoy6kdq6tzivbtqd4d32b@izqbcsixgngk>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 09:43:29 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...utedevices.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...rdevices.ru,
oxffffaa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 0/4] send credit update during setting
SO_RCVLOWAT
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 08:43:07PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 12.12.2023 19:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 06:59:03PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12.12.2023 18:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:16:54AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> DESCRIPTION
>>>>>
>>>>> This patchset fixes old problem with hungup of both rx/tx sides and adds
>>>>> test for it. This happens due to non-default SO_RCVLOWAT value and
>>>>> deferred credit update in virtio/vsock. Link to previous old patchset:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/39b2e9fd-601b-189d-39a9-914e5574524c@sberdevices.ru/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patchset:
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I worry whether we actually need 3/8 in net not in net-next.
>>>
>>> Because of "Fixes" tag ? I think this problem is not critical and reproducible
>>> only in special cases, but i'm not familiar with netdev process so good, so I don't
>>> have strong opinion. I guess @Stefano knows better.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Arseniy
>>
>> Fixes means "if you have that other commit then you need this commit
>> too". I think as a minimum you need to rearrange patches to make the
>> fix go in first. We don't want a regression followed by a fix.
>
>I see, ok, @Stefano WDYT? I think rearrange doesn't break anything,
>because this
>patch fixes problem that is not related with the new patches from this patchset.
I agree, patch 3 is for sure net material (I'm fine with both
rearrangement or send it separately), but IMHO also patch 2 could be.
I think with the same fixes tag, since before commit b89d882dc9fc
("vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages") we sent a credit update
for every bytes we read, so we should not have this problem, right?
So, maybe all the series could be "net".
Thanks,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists