On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:20:36 pm Amit Shah wrote:
> The old way of sending data to the host was to populate one buffer and
> then wait till the host consumed it before sending the next chunk of
> data.
>
> Also, there was no support to send large chunks of data.
>
> We now maintain a per-device list of buffers that are ready to be
> passed on to the host.
>
> This patch adds support to send big chunks in multiple buffers of
> PAGE_SIZE each to the host.
>
> When the host consumes the data and signals to us via an interrupt, we
> add the consumed buffer back to our unconsumed list.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/char/virtio_console.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> index e8dabae..3111e4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> @@ -67,9 +67,13 @@ struct ports_device {
> struct work_struct rx_work;
>
> struct list_head unused_read_head;
> + struct list_head unused_write_head;
>
> /* To protect the list of unused read buffers and the in_vq */
> spinlock_t read_list_lock;
> +
> + /* To protect the list of unused write buffers and the out_vq */
> + spinlock_t write_list_lock;
> };
Let's simplify this a little with a single "buffer_lock" or such in the
previous patch.
> + if (!in_count)
> return 0;
Not necessary: if it happens all we'll do is gratuitously kick the host.
> + in_offset = 0; /* offset in the user buffer */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&port->portdev->write_list_lock, irqf);
> + while (in_count - in_offset) {
while (in_offset < in_count) seems clearer to me here.
> + copy_size = min(in_count - in_offset, PAGE_SIZE);
Shouldn't you be using buf->size here?
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->portdev->write_list_lock, irqf);
> +
> + /*
> + * Since we're not sure when the host will actually
> + * consume the data and tell us about it, we have
> + * to copy the data here in case the caller
> + * frees the in_buf
> + */
> + memcpy(buf->buf, in_buf + in_offset, copy_size);
> +
> + buf->len = copy_size;
> + sg_init_one(sg, buf->buf, buf->len);
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&port->portdev->write_list_lock, irqf);
Dropping the lock here seems gratuitous.
> +/*
> + * This function is only called from the init routine so the spinlock
> + * for the unused_write_head list isn't taken
> + */
> +static void alloc_write_bufs(struct ports_device *portdev)
> +{
> + struct port_buffer *buf;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < 30; i++) {
30? And why aren't we allocating these somehow as they're
consumed?
> fill_receive_queue(portdev);
> + alloc_write_bufs(portdev);
What happens if this fails?
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
