From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: annie li <annie.li@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next V3 2/3] xen-netfront: split event
 channels support for Xen frontend driver
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:14:57 -0400
Message-ID: <519E2461.2090203@oracle.com>
References: <1369240487-18834-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <1369240487-18834-3-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com> <519D1D61.8030500@oracle.com> <CAOsiSVXptBRRA=m3HFnO7eQWjxN_wgfzAcvw+rPebOPH9mRjXg@mail.gmail.com> <519D2C02.7080500@oracle.com> <CAOsiSVUHqezpo4u+Go1pm4vm7Hots2gDUJ9YEzVK7_FPSc3zLA@mail.gmail.com> <20130523134618.GA18648@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Wei Liu <liuw@liuw.name>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
	jbeulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:44064 "EHLO
	aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1759141Ab3EWOPO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 23 May 2013 10:15:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20130523134618.GA18648@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>


On 2013-5-23 9:46, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:38:20PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:35 PM, annie li <annie.li@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-5-22 16:20, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM, annie li <annie.li@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Originally, netfront protects access to rx shared-ring with tx_lock, you
>>>>> remove this protection here. It is better to protect the ring access by a
>>>>> sperate rx_lock then.
>>>>>
>>>> TX ring and RX ring are separate rings. I don't think that comment / code
>>>> makes sense any more. My stress test confirms that.
>>>
>>> Yes, they are separate rings. Actually I am not sure why
>>> RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES(&np->rx) is protected by any tx_lock
>>> originally. But for xennet_rx_interrupt, it is better to use rx_lock to
>>> protect RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES(&np->rx).
>>>
>> This doesn't make sense to me either. Xen ring protocol is designed to
>> be lock-free.
>> And in netfront's case there is no concurrent access to the ring.
>>
>>
> Annie, did I answer your questions / relieve your concern?

Yes, I think you are correct.

Thanks
Annie