On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 00:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 01:56:54PM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 23:45 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > +/* Since we need to keep the order of used_idx as avail_idx,
> it's
> > > possible that
> > > > + * DMA done not in order in lower device driver for some
> reason. To
> > > prevent
> > > > + * used_idx out of order, upend_idx is used to track avail_idx
> > > order, done_idx
> > > > + * is used to track used_idx order. Once lower device DMA done,
> > > then upend_idx
> > > > + * can move to done_idx.
> > >
> > > Could you clarify this please? virtio explicitly allows out of
> order
> > > completion of requests. Does it simplify code that we try to keep
> > > used index updates in-order? Because if not, this is not
> > > really a requirement.
> >
> > Hello Mike,
> >
> > Based on my testing, vhost_add_used() must be in order from
> > vhost_get_vq_desc(). Otherwise, virtio_net ring seems get double
> > freed.
>
> Double-freed or you get NULL below?
More likely is NULL.
> > I didn't spend time on debugging this.
> >
> > in virtqueue_get_buf
> >
> > if (unlikely(!vq->data[i])) {
> > BAD_RING(vq, "id %u is not a head!\n", i);
> > return NULL;
> > }
>
> Yes but i used here is the head that we read from the
> ring, not the ring index itself.
> i = vq->vring.used->ring[vq->last_used_idx%vq->vring.num].id
> we must complete any id only once, but in any order.
It is in any order of ring id, but must be in the order of "head"
returns from vhost_get_vq_desc(), any clue?
Thanks
Shirley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
