Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next] xen-netback: Rework rx_work_todo

[Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel