From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 1/3] vhost: replace vhost_workqueue with
 per-vhost kthread
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:23:46 +0300
Message-ID: <20100726162346.GD26412@redhat.com>
References: <4C04D41B.4050704@kernel.org>
 <4C06A580.9060300@kernel.org>
 <20100722155840.GA1743@redhat.com>
 <4C48B664.9000109@kernel.org>
 <20100724191447.GA4972@redhat.com>
 <4C4BEAA2.6040301@kernel.org>
 <20100726152510.GA26223@redhat.com>
 <4C4DAB14.5050809@kernel.org>
 <20100726155014.GA26412@redhat.com>
 <4C4DB247.9060709@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@movial.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C4DB247.9060709@kernel.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:05:27PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 07/26/2010 05:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> Hmmm... I'm not quite sure whether it's an optimization.  I thought
> >> the patch was due to feeling uncomfortable about using barriers?
> > 
> > Oh yes. But getting rid of barriers is what motivated me originally.
> 
> Yeah, getting rid of barriers is always good.  :-)
> 
> > Is there a git tree with kthread_worker applied?
> > I might do this just for fun ...
> 
>  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq.git for-next
> 
> For the original implementaiton, please take a look at commit
> b56c0d8937e665a27d90517ee7a746d0aa05af46.
> 
> * Can you please keep the outer goto repeat loop?  I just don't like
>   outermost for (;;).

Okay ... can we put the code in a {} scope to make it clear
where does the loop starts and ends?

> * Placing try_to_freeze() could be a bit annoying.  It shouldn't be
>   executed when there's a work to flush.

It currently seems to be executed when there is work to flush.
Is this wrong?

> * I think A - B <= 0 test would be more familiar.  At least
>   time_before/after() are implemented that way.

I am concerned that this overflows a signed integer -
which I seem to remeber that C99 disallows.
timer macros are on data path so might be worth the risk there,
but flush is slow path so better be safe?

> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun