Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 16:46:53 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>,
        Norbert Slusarek <nslusarek@gmx.net>,
        Andra Paraschiv <andraprs@amazon.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stsp2@yandex.ru, oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 19/19] af_vsock: serialize writes to shared socket
Message-ID: <20210513144653.ogzfvypqpjsz2iga@steredhat>
References: <20210508163027.3430238-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
 <20210508163738.3432975-1-arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
 <20210513140150.ugw6foy742fxan4w@steredhat>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210513140150.ugw6foy742fxan4w@steredhat>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 04:01:50PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 07:37:35PM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
>>This add logic, that serializes write access to single socket
>>by multiple threads. It is implemented be adding field with TID
>>of current writer. When writer tries to send something, it checks
>>that field is -1(free), else it sleep in the same way as waiting
>>for free space at peers' side.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Arseny Krasnov <arseny.krasnov@kaspersky.com>
>>---
>>include/net/af_vsock.h   |  1 +
>>net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 10 +++++++++-
>>2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>I think you forgot to move this patch at the beginning of the series.
>It's important because in this way we can backport to stable branches 
>easily.
>
>About the implementation, can't we just add a mutex that we hold until 
>we have sent all the payload?

Re-thinking, I guess we can't because we have the timeout to deal 
with...

>
>I need to check other implementations like TCP.
>

Thanks,
Stefano