Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:52:41 +0000 | From | Zoltan Kiss <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next] xen-netback: Rework rx_work_todo |
| |
On 15/01/14 14:45, Wei Liu wrote: >>>> The recent patch to fix receive side flow control (11b57f) solved the spinning >>>> > >>thread problem, however caused an another one. The receive side can stall, if: >>>> > >>- xenvif_rx_action sets rx_queue_stopped to false >>>> > >>- interrupt happens, and sets rx_event to true >>>> > >>- then xenvif_kthread sets rx_event to false >>>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >If you mean "rx_work_todo" returns false. >>> > > >>> > >In this case >>> > > >>> > >(!skb_queue_empty(&vif->rx_queue) && !vif->rx_queue_stopped) || vif->rx_event; >>> > > >>> > >can still be true, can't it? >> >Sorry, I should wrote rx_queue_stopped to true >> > > In this case, if rx_queue_stopped is true, then we're expecting frontend > to notify us, right? > > rx_queue_stopped is set to true if we cannot make any progress to queue > packet into the ring. In that situation we can expect frontend will send > notification to backend after it goes through the backlog in the ring. > That means rx_event is set to true, and rx_work_todo is true again. So > the ring is actually not stalled in this case as well. Did I miss > something? >
Yes, we expect the guest to notify us, and it does, and we set rx_event to true (see second point), but then the thread set it to false (see third point). Talking with Paul, another solution could be to set rx_event false before calling xenvif_rx_action. But using rx_last_skb_slots makes it quicker for the thread to see if it doesn't have to do anything.
Zoli
| |