Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 18:50:42 +0800
From:   Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     mst@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        wexu@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
Message-ID: <20180510105042.4pexugiizpqccn77@debian>
References: <20180425051550.24342-1-tiwei.bie@intel.com>
 <20180425051550.24342-4-tiwei.bie@intel.com>
 <927f4478-5a81-31d4-ac69-f9ec26248591@redhat.com>
 <5885acac-e9e3-3abf-b6a2-7347f4d55be2@redhat.com>
 <20180510085601.6mpxf3yvwxnqnk5q@debian>
 <2fc35cd5-9dbd-7743-497f-b6637d92f528@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2fc35cd5-9dbd-7743-497f-b6637d92f528@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 05:49:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2018年05月10日 16:56, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 03:34:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018年05月10日 15:32, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2018年04月25日 13:15, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > +    /* We're using some buffers from the free list. */
> > > > > +    vq->vq.num_free -= descs_used;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +    /* Update free pointer */
> > > > > +    if (indirect) {
> > > > > +        n = head + 1;
> > > > > +        if (n >= vq->vring_packed.num) {
> > > > > +            n = 0;
> > > > > +            vq->wrap_counter ^= 1;
> > > > > +        }
> > > > > +        vq->next_avail_idx = n;
> > > > > +    } else
> > > > > +        vq->next_avail_idx = i;
> > > > During testing zerocopy (out of order completion), I found driver may
> > > > submit two identical buffer id to vhost. So the above code may not work
> > > > well.
> > > > 
> > > > Consider the case that driver adds 3 buffer and virtqueue size is 8.
> > > > 
> > > > a) id = 0,count = 2,next_avail = 2
> > > > 
> > > > b) id = 2,count = 4,next_avail = 2
> > > next_avail should be 6 here.
> > > 
> > > > c) id = 4,count = 2,next_avail = 0
> > > > 
> > > id should be 6 here.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > > if packet b is done before packet a, driver may think buffer id 0 is
> > > > available and try to use it if even if the real buffer 0 was not done.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > Nice catch! Thanks a lot!
> > I'll implement an ID allocator.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Tiwei Bie
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> Another similar issue is detac_buf_packed(). It did:
> 
>         for (j = 0; j < vq->desc_state[head].num; j++) {
>                 desc = &vq->vring_packed.desc[i];
>                 vring_unmap_one_packed(vq, desc);
>                 i++;
>                 if (i >= vq->vring_packed.num)
>                         i = 0;
>         }
> 
> This probably won't work for out of order too and according to the spec:
> 
> """
> Driver needs to keep track of the size of the list corresponding to each
> buffer ID, to be able to skip to where the next used descriptor is written
> by the device.
> """
> 
> Looks like we should not depend on the descriptor ring.

Yeah, the previous ID allocation is too simple.. 
Let me fix it in the next version.

Thanks!

> 
> Thanks