Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen: optimize xenbus driver for multiple concurrent xenstore accesses

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> +
>>> +
>>> +static bool test_reply(struct xb_req_data *req)
>>> +{
>>> +   if (req->state == xb_req_state_got_reply || !xenbus_ok())
>>> +           return true;
>>> +
>>> +   /* Make sure to reread req->state each time. */
>>> +   cpu_relax();
>> I don't think I understand why this is needed.
> I need a compiler barrier. Otherwise the compiler read req->state only
> once outside the while loop.


Then barrier() looks the right primitive to use here. cpu_relax(), while
doing what you want, is intended for other purposes.


>
>>> +
>>> +   return false;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>>> +static void xs_send(struct xb_req_data *req, struct xsd_sockmsg *msg)
>>>  {
>>> -   mutex_lock(&xs_state.transaction_mutex);
>>> -   atomic_inc(&xs_state.transaction_count);
>>> -   mutex_unlock(&xs_state.transaction_mutex);
>>> -}
>>> +   bool notify;
>>>  
>>> -static void transaction_end(void)
>>> -{
>>> -   if (atomic_dec_and_test(&xs_state.transaction_count))
>>> -           wake_up(&xs_state.transaction_wq);
>>> -}
>>> +   req->msg = *msg;
>>> +   req->err = 0;
>>> +   req->state = xb_req_state_queued;
>>> +   init_waitqueue_head(&req->wq);
>>>  
>>> -static void transaction_suspend(void)
>>> -{
>>> -   mutex_lock(&xs_state.transaction_mutex);
>>> -   wait_event(xs_state.transaction_wq,
>>> -              atomic_read(&xs_state.transaction_count) == 0);
>>> -}
>>> +   xs_request_enter(req);
>>>  
>>> -static void transaction_resume(void)
>>> -{
>>> -   mutex_unlock(&xs_state.transaction_mutex);
>>> +   req->msg.req_id = xs_request_id++;
>> Is it safe to do this without a lock?
> You are right: I should move this to xs_request_enter() inside the
> lock. I think I'll let return xs_request_enter() the request id.


Then please move xs_request_id's declaration close to xs_state_lock's
declaration (just like you are going to move the two other state variables)


>
>>> +static int xs_reboot_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
>>> +                       unsigned long code, void *unused)
>>>  {
>>> -   struct xs_stored_msg *msg;
>>
>>
>>> +   struct xb_req_data *req;
>>> +
>>> +   mutex_lock(&xb_write_mutex);
>>> +   list_for_each_entry(req, &xs_reply_list, list)
>>> +           wake_up(&req->wq);
>>> +   list_for_each_entry(req, &xb_write_list, list)
>>> +           wake_up(&req->wq);
>> We are waking up waiters here but there is not guarantee that waiting
>> threads will have a chance to run, is there?
> You are right. But this isn't the point. We want to avoid blocking a
> reboot due to some needed thread waiting for xenstore. And this task
> is being accomplished here.


I think it's worth adding a comment mentioning this.

-boris


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