Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-134904-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:33:19 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	jasowang@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	stefanha@redhat.com, sgarzare@redhat.com, keirf@google.com,
	yihyu@redhat.com, shan.gavin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] vhost: Improve vhost_get_avail_idx() with
 smp_rmb()
Message-ID: <20240408033143-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20240328002149.1141302-1-gshan@redhat.com>
 <20240328002149.1141302-4-gshan@redhat.com>
 <20240328052814-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <8faa07aa-d330-4e3f-95b7-26437d448beb@redhat.com>
 <b41d65de-dc43-45f6-ba6c-ae722fbb70a8@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b41d65de-dc43-45f6-ba6c-ae722fbb70a8@redhat.com>

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 02:15:24PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On 3/30/24 19:02, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > On 3/28/24 19:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:21:49AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > > > All the callers of vhost_get_avail_idx() are concerned to the memory
> > > > barrier, imposed by smp_rmb() to ensure the order of the available
> > > > ring entry read and avail_idx read.
> > > > 
> > > > Improve vhost_get_avail_idx() so that smp_rmb() is executed when
> > > > the avail_idx is advanced. With it, the callers needn't to worry
> > > > about the memory barrier.
> > > > 
> > > > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > Previous patches are ok. This one I feel needs more work -
> > > first more code such as sanity checking should go into
> > > this function, second there's actually a difference
> > > between comparing to last_avail_idx and just comparing
> > > to the previous value of avail_idx.
> > > I will pick patches 1-2 and post a cleanup on top so you can
> > > take a look, ok?
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks, Michael. It's fine to me.
> > 
> 
> A kindly ping.
> 
> If it's ok to you, could you please merge PATCH[1-2]? Our downstream
> 9.4 need the fixes, especially for NVidia's grace-hopper and grace-grace
> platforms.
> 
> For PATCH[3], I also can help with the improvement if you don't have time
> for it. Please let me know.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gavin

The thing to do is basically diff with the patch I wrote :)
We can also do a bit more cleanups on top of *that*, like unifying
error handling.

-- 
MST