Amit Shah <amit.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On (Tue) 23 Oct 2012 [12:17:49], Rusty Russell wrote:
>> sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> > From: Sjur Brændeland <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> > @@ -1415,7 +1524,16 @@ static void remove_port_data(struct port *port)
>> >
>> > /* Remove buffers we queued up for the Host to send us data in. */
>> > while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(port->in_vq)))
>> > - free_buf(buf);
>> > + free_buf(buf, true);
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * Remove buffers from out queue for rproc-serial. We cannot afford
>> > + * to leak any DMA mem, so reclaim this memory even if this might be
>> > + * racy for the remote processor.
>> > + */
>> > + if (is_rproc_serial(port->portdev->vdev))
>> > + while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(port->out_vq)))
>> > + free_buf(buf, true);
>> > }
>>
>> This seems wrong; either this is needed even if !is_rproc_serial(), or
>> it's not necessary as the out_vq is empty.
>>
>> Every path I can see has the device reset (in which case the queues
>> should not be active), or we got a VIRTIO_CONSOLE_PORT_REMOVE event (in
>> which case, the same).
>>
>> I think we can have non-blocking writes which could leave buffers in
>> out_vq: Amit?
>
> Those get 'reclaimed' just above this hunk:
>
>
> static void remove_port_data(struct port *port)
> {
> struct port_buffer *buf;
>
> /* Remove unused data this port might have received. */
> discard_port_data(port);
>
> reclaim_consumed_buffers(port);
>
> /* Remove buffers we queued up for the Host to send us data in. */
> while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(port->in_vq)))
> free_buf(buf, true);
No, that's pending input buffers, not output buffers.
Cheers,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
