Il 13/03/2013 04:02, Asias He ha scritto:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:26:18AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 12/03/2013 03:42, Asias He ha scritto:
>>> This helper is useful to check if vs->vs_endpoint is setup by
>>> vhost_scsi_set_endpoint()
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Asias He <asias@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c
>>> index b3e50d7..29612bc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c
>>> @@ -91,6 +91,18 @@ static int iov_num_pages(struct iovec *iov)
>>> ((unsigned long)iov->iov_base & PAGE_MASK)) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool tcm_vhost_check_endpoint(struct vhost_scsi *vs)
>>> +{
>>> + bool ret = false;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&vs->dev.mutex);
>>> + if (vs->vs_endpoint)
>>> + ret = true;
>>> + mutex_unlock(&vs->dev.mutex);
>>
>> The return value is invalid as soon as mutex_unlock is called, i.e.
>> before tcm_vhost_check_endpoint returns. Instead, check vs->vs_endpoint
>> in the caller while the mutex is taken.
>
> Do you mean 1) or 2)?
>
> 1)
> vhost_scsi_handle_vq()
> {
>
> mutex_lock(&vs->dev.mutex);
> check vs->vs_endpoint
> mutex_unlock(&vs->dev.mutex);
>
> handle vq
> }
>
> 2)
> vhost_scsi_handle_vq()
> {
>
> lock vs->dev.mutex
> check vs->vs_endpoint
> handle vq
> unlock vs->dev.mutex
> }
>
> 1) does not make any difference with the original
> one right?
Yes, it's just what you have with tcm_vhost_check_endpoint inlined.
> 2) would be too heavy. This might not be a problem in current 1 thread
> per vhost model. But if we want concurrent multiqueue, this will be
> killing us.
I mean (2). You could use an rwlock to enable more concurrency.
Paolo
--
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
