From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/9] Fixes for vhost metadata acceleration Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 15:12:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20190810150611-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20190807070617.23716-1-jasowang@redhat.com> <20190807070617.23716-8-jasowang@redhat.com> <20190807120738.GB1557@ziepe.ca> <1000f8a3-19a9-0383-61e5-ba08ddc9fcba@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1000f8a3-19a9-0383-61e5-ba08ddc9fcba@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jason Wang Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:54:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > I don't have any objection to convert=A0 to spinlock() but just want to > know if any case that the above smp_mb() + counter looks good to you? So how about we try this: - revert the original patch for this release - new safe patch with a spinlock for the next release - whatever improvements we can come up with on top Thoughts? Because I think this needs much more scrutiny than we can give an incremental patch. -- = MST