Re: [PATCH RFC v6 02/11] vhost: use batched get_vq_desc version

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:02:57AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/6/10 下午7:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vhost_get_vq_desc);
> > > >    /* Reverse the effect of vhost_get_vq_desc. Useful for error handling. */
> > > >    void vhost_discard_vq_desc(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, int n)
> > > >    {
> > > > +	unfetch_descs(vq);
> > > >    	vq->last_avail_idx -= n;
> > > So unfetch_descs() has decreased last_avail_idx.
> > > Can we fix this by letting unfetch_descs() return the number and then we can
> > > do:
> > > 
> > > int d = unfetch_descs(vq);
> > > vq->last_avail_idx -= (n > d) ? n - d: 0;
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > That's intentional I think - we need both.
> 
> 
> Yes, but:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Unfetch_descs drops the descriptors in the cache that were
> > *not returned to caller*  through get_vq_desc.
> > 
> > vhost_discard_vq_desc drops the ones that were returned through get_vq_desc.
> > 
> > Did I miss anything?
> 
> We could count some descriptors twice, consider the case e.g we only cache
> on descriptor:
> 
> fetch_descs()
>     fetch_buf()
>         last_avail_idx++;
> 
> Then we want do discard it:
> vhost_discard_avail_buf(1)
>     unfetch_descs()
>         last_avail_idx--;
>     last_avail_idx -= 1;
> 
> Thanks


I don't think that happens. vhost_discard_avail_buf(1) is only called
after get vhost_get_avail_buf. vhost_get_avail_buf increments
first_desc.  unfetch_descs only counts from first_desc to ndescs.

If I'm wrong, could you show values of first_desc and ndescs in this
scenario?

-- 
MST