From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934010AbcKKQUt (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:20:49 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59988 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932532AbcKKQUq (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:20:46 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:20:44 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Jason Wang Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] vhost: better detection of available buffers Message-ID: <20161111182023-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1478677113-13126-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1478677113-13126-2-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20161109215513-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <70cb5ad8-5266-b0c4-7b55-4aea4f5f01a6@redhat.com> <20161111054021-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:18:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2016年11月11日 11:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:18:37AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >On 2016年11月10日 03:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > >On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:38:32PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > >We should use vq->last_avail_idx instead of vq->avail_idx in the > > > > > > > >checking of vhost_vq_avail_empty() since latter is the cached avail > > > > > > > >index from guest but we want to know if there's pending available > > > > > > > >buffers in the virtqueue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Jason Wang > > > > > >I'm not sure why is this patch here. Is it related to > > > > > >batching somehow? > > > > > > > >Yes, we need to know whether or not there's still buffers left in the > > > >virtqueue, so need to check last_avail_idx. Otherwise, we're checking if > > > >guest has submitted new buffers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > > > > > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > > >index c6f2d89..fdf4cdf 100644 > > > > > > > >--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > > >+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > > >@@ -2230,7 +2230,7 @@ bool vhost_vq_avail_empty(struct vhost_dev *dev, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq) > > > > > > > > if (r) > > > > > > > > return false; > > > > > > > >- return vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx) == vq->avail_idx; > > > > > > > >+ return vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx) == vq->last_avail_idx; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vhost_vq_avail_empty); > > > > > >That might be OK for TX but it's probably wrong for RX > > > > > >where the fact that used != avail does not mean > > > > > >we have enough space to store the packet. > > > > > > > >Right, but it's no harm since it was just a hint, handle_rx() can handle > > > >this situation. > > Means busy polling will cause useless load on the CPU though. > > > > Right, but,it's not easy to have 100% correct hint here. Needs more thought. What's wrong with what we have? It polls until value changes. -- MST