From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] events/fifo: don't spin indefinitely
 when setting LINK
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:56:53 +0000
Message-ID: <52810C55.6070107@citrix.com>
References: <1384185808-13822-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1384185808-13822-2-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<52811626020000780010206E@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david.vrabel@citrix.com>) id 1VfunK-000160-Kq
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:56:58 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52811626020000780010206E@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: David Vrabel <dvrabel@cantab.net>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 11/11/13 16:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 11.11.13 at 17:03, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
>> +    w = read_atomic(word);
>> +
>> +    for ( try = 0; try < 4; try++ )
>> +    {
>> +        ret = try_set_link(word, &w, link);
>> +        if ( ret >= 0 )
>> +        {
>> +            clear_bit(EVTCHN_FIFO_BUSY, word);
> 
> Considering that this is another atomic operation, wouldn't it
> make sense to have the cmpxchg() at once clear the flag,
> and hence you'd need to clear it here only when ret == 0
> (which I understand isn't the common case)?

The common case (I believe, but haven't measured it) is the first
try_set_link() call without BUSY set.

In the loop, I suspect the mostly likely write by the guest is clearing
LINKED, i.e., ret == 0.

Still, it seems easy enough to have:

    for ( try = 0; try < 4; try++ )
    {
        ret = try_set_link(word, &w, link);
        if ( ret >= 0 )
        {
            if ( ret == 0 )
                clear_bit(EVTCHN_FIFO_BUSY, word);
            return ret;
        }
    }

David