From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: xenbus stress testing Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:01:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20110218120110.GA20514@aepfle.de> References: <19805.29093.996401.185391@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20110218110524.GA10012@aepfle.de> <291EDFCB1E9E224A99088639C47620228CFFAD8287@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <291EDFCB1E9E224A99088639C47620228CFFAD8287@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Paul Durrant Cc: James Harper , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Feb 18, Paul Durrant wrote: > How do you propose to lock against another VM updating a counter in shared memory? I thought xenstore uses the same ringbuffer as defined by DEFINE_RING_TYPES(). But reading the code in include/xen/interface/io/xs_wire.h shows it has its own logic. And reading further in xenpaging code, which I had in mind while I wrote the mail, shows there is a separate spinlock. I can imagine that even if a lock exists, a VM crashing while holding the lock can stall all other VMs. So its probably not the best idea. Olaf