Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/scsifront: don't advance ring request pointer in case of error
From: Juergen Gross
Date: Tue Nov 29 2016 - 07:33:16 EST
On 29/11/16 12:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.11.16 at 12:19, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 29/11/16 12:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 29.11.16 at 11:50, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/xen-scsifront.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/xen-scsifront.c
>>>> @@ -184,8 +184,6 @@ static struct vscsiif_request *scsifront_pre_req(struct
>> vscsifrnt_info *info)
>>>> ring_req = RING_GET_REQUEST(&(info->ring), ring->req_prod_pvt);
>>>> - ring->req_prod_pvt++;
>>> Please note the "_pvt" suffix, which stands for "private": This field is
>>> not visible to the backend. Only ring->sring fields are shared, and
>>> the updating of the shared field happens in RING_PUSH_REQUESTS()
>>> and RING_PUSH_REQUESTS_AND_CHECK_NOTIFY().
>> Sure, but RING_PUSH_REQUESTS() will copy req_prod_pvt to req_prod. In
>> the case corrected this would advance req_prod by two after the error
>> case before, even if only one request would have made it to the ring.
> Okay, then I may have been mislead by the patch description: I
> understood it to say that you want to avoid the backend seeing
> requests which haven't been filled fully, but it looks like you're
> instead saying that for these requests the filling will never be
> completed (because of some unrelated(?) error). Iirc other
> frontend drivers behave similarly to the unpatched scsifront, and
blkfront and netfront seem to be okay.
> incrementing req_prod_pvt late has possible (perhaps just
> theoretical) other issues, like parallel retrieval and filling of them
> on mor than one CPU. Wouldn't it be better to obtain a request
In scsifront the complete critical path is guarded by a lock.
> structure only when everything else is ready (and hence no further
> errors can occur)? After all you also need to deal with the acquired
> ID upon errors, and seems odd to me to deal with the two parts of
> cleanup in different places (and even in different ways).
Hmm, I can see your point.
I'll have a look how intrusive such a change would be.