On 10/15/2014 12:33 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 07:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:53:59AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> >> > static void skb_xmit_done(struct virtqueue *vq)
>>>> >> > {
>>>> >> > struct virtnet_info *vi = vq->vdev->priv;
>>>> >> > + struct send_queue *sq = &vi->sq[vq2txq(vq)];
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > - /* Suppress further interrupts. */
>>>> >> > - virtqueue_disable_cb(vq);
>>>> >> > -
>> > One note here: current code seems racy because of doing
>> > virtqueue_disable_cb from skb_xmit_done that I'm dropping here: there's
>> > no guarantee we don't get an interrupt while tx ring is running, and if
>> > that happens we can end up with interrupts disabled forever.
>> >
> Looks harmless since:
>
> - if event index is enabled, virtqueue_disable_cb() does nothing in fact.
> - if event index is disabled, we don't depend on tx interrupt and when
> num_free is low we will try to enable the tx interrupt again.
Ok, I think I get you here. For 'current' you mean the rfc I post.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
