On 15/11/17 22:20, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 11/15/2017 02:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> while(mutex_is_locked(>active.in_mutex.owner) ||
>>>
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 04:50 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, code style issue: one missing space in the comment. I'll send it
> > again separately
>
>
> I've already fixed this, no worries.
Thank you!!
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On 11/15/2017 02:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > while(mutex_is_locked(>active.in_mutex.owner) ||
> > >
On 11/15/2017 04:50 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> Sorry, code style issue: one missing space in the comment. I'll send it
> again separately
I've already fixed this, no worries.
-boris
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 02:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > while(mutex_is_locked(>active.in_mutex.owner) ||
> > mutex_is_locked(>active.out_mutex.owner))
> >
On 11/15/2017 02:50 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 02:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>
>> However, I should note that this is a pretty big hammer we are using:
>> the refcount is global, while we only need to wait until it's only us
>> _on this specific socket_.
> Can you explain
On 11/15/2017 02:09 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> while(mutex_is_locked(>active.in_mutex.owner) ||
> mutex_is_locked(>active.out_mutex.owner))
> cpu_relax();
>
> ?
I'm not convinced there
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> while(mutex_is_locked(>active.in_mutex.owner) ||
> >>> mutex_is_locked(>active.out_mutex.owner))
> >>> cpu_relax();
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >> I'm not convinced there isn't a race.
> >>
> >> In pvcalls_front_recvmsg()
On 14/11/17 22:46, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 04:11 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 13/11/17 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 11/11/17 00:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 06/11/17
On 11/14/2017 04:11 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 13/11/17 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 11/11/17 00:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>
On 13/11/17 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 11/11/17 00:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 11/11/17 00:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
> >>> take in_mutex on the first
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/10/2017 06:57 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
> > > > take in_mutex on
On 11/11/17 00:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
>>> take in_mutex on the first try, but you can't take out_mutex. Next times
>>> you
On 11/10/2017 06:57 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
take in_mutex on the first try, but you can't take out_mutex. Next times
you call
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
> > take in_mutex on the first try, but you can't take out_mutex. Next times
> > you call mutex_trylock() in_mutex is going to fail.
On 06/11/17 23:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
> take in_mutex on the first try, but you can't take out_mutex. Next times
> you call mutex_trylock() in_mutex is going to fail. It's an endless
> loop.
>
> Solve the problem by
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 05:17 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
> > take in_mutex on the first try, but you can't take out_mutex. Next times
> > you call mutex_trylock() in_mutex is going to
On 11/06/2017 05:17 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
> take in_mutex on the first try, but you can't take out_mutex. Next times
> you call mutex_trylock() in_mutex is going to fail. It's an endless
> loop.
>
> Solve the problem
mutex_trylock() returns 1 if you take the lock and 0 if not. Assume you
take in_mutex on the first try, but you can't take out_mutex. Next times
you call mutex_trylock() in_mutex is going to fail. It's an endless
loop.
Solve the problem by moving the two mutex_trylock calls to two separate
loops.
20 matches
Mail list logo
