From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1OBDmW-0006fA-IN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 17:11:24 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=55220 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OBDmT-0006en-WD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 17:11:24 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OBDmS-0001GO-IQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 17:11:21 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16058)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OBDmS-0001GH-AE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 May 2010 17:11:20 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:06:52 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100509210652.GB21338@redhat.com>
References: <20100505205814.GA7090@redhat.com>
	<201005061201.35223.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
	<20100506061945.GA8363@redhat.com>
	<201005071303.29129.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201005071303.29129.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into
	ring itself
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 01:03:28PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 03:49:46 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Now, I also added an mb() in guest between read and write so
> > that last used index write can not get ahead of used index read.
> > It does feel good to have it there, but I can not say why
> > it's helpful. Works fine without it, but then these
> > subtle races might be hard to trigger. What do you think?
> 
> I couldn't see that in the patch?  I don't think it's necessary
> though, since the write of depends last_used depends on the read of
> used (and no platform we care about would reorder such a thing).

Well, there's no data dependency, is there?

> I'm reasonably happy, but we should write some convenient test for
> missing interrupts.
> 
> I'm thinking of a sender which does a loop: blasts 1MB of UDP packets,
> then prints the time and sleep(1).  The receiver would print the time
> every 1MB of received data.  The two times should almost exactly correspond.
> 
> Assuming that the network doesn't overflow and lose stuff, this should
> identify any missing wakeup/interrupts (depending on direction used).
> 
> Cheers,
> Rusty.