On 2017年07月30日 14:26, K. Den wrote:
On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 19:08 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:37:15PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:

On 2017年07月26日 21:18, Jason Wang wrote:

On 2017年07月26日 20:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:03:17PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
This reverts commit 809ecb9bca6a9424ccd392d67e368160f8b76c92. Since it
was reported to break vhost_net. We want to cache used event and use
it to check for notification. We try to valid cached used event by
checking whether or not it was ahead of new, but this is not correct
all the time, it could be stale and there's no way to know about this.

Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasow...@redhat.com>
Could you supply a bit more data here please?  How does it get stale?
What does guest need to do to make it stale?  This will be helpful if
anyone wants to bring it back, or if we want to extend the protocol.

The problem we don't know whether or not guest has published a new used
event. The check vring_need_event(vq->last_used_event, new + vq->num,
new) is not sufficient to check for this.

Thanks
More notes, the previous assumption is that we don't move used event back,
but this could happen in fact if idx is wrapper around.
You mean if the 16 bit index wraps around after 64K entries.
Makes sense.

Will repost and add
this into commit log.

Thanks
Hi,

Hi, sorry for the late reply, was on vacation last week.


I am just curious but I have got a question:
AFAIU, if you wanted to keep the caching mechanism alive in the code base,
the following two changes could clear off the issue, or not?:
(1) Always fetch the latest event value from guest when signalled_used event is
invalid, which includes last_used_idx wraps-around case. Otherwise we might need
changes which would complicate too much the logic to properly decide whether or
not to skip signalling in the next vhost_notify round.
(2) On top of that, split the signal-postponing logic to three cases like:
* if the interval of vq.num is [2^16, UINT_MAX]:
any cached event is in should-postpone-signalling interval, so paradoxically
must always do signalling.

I think don't think current code can work well if vq.num is grater than 2^15. Since all cached idx is u16. This looks like a bug which needs to be fixed.

* else if the interval of vq.num is [2^15, 2^16):
the logic in the original patch (809ecb9bca6a9) suffices
* else (= less than 2^15) (optional):
checking only (vring_need_event(vq->last_used_event, new + vq->num, new)
would suffice.

Am I missing something, or is this irrelevant?

Looks not, I think this may work. Let me do some test.

Thanks

I would appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more how the situation where
event idx wraps around and moves back would make trouble.

Thanks.



_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Reply via email to