On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit :
> > +static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > +{
> > + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &net->dev.vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_TX];
> > + unsigned head, out, in, s;
> > + struct msghdr msg = {
> > + .msg_name = NULL,
> > + .msg_namelen = 0,
> > + .msg_control = NULL,
> > + .msg_controllen = 0,
> > + .msg_iov = vq->iov,
> > + .msg_flags = MSG_DONTWAIT,
> > + };
> > + size_t len, total_len = 0;
> > + int err, wmem;
> > + size_t hdr_size;
> > + struct socket *sock = rcu_dereference(vq->private_data);
> > + if (!sock)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + wmem = atomic_read(&sock->sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
> > + if (wmem >= sock->sk->sk_sndbuf)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + use_mm(net->dev.mm);
> > + mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > + vhost_no_notify(vq);
> > +
>
> using rcu_dereference() and mutex_lock() at the same time seems wrong, I
> suspect
> that your use of RCU is not correct.
>
> 1) rcu_dereference() should be done inside a read_rcu_lock() section, and
> we are not allowed to sleep in such a section.
> (Quoting Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt :
> It is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical section, )
>
> 2) mutex_lock() can sleep (ie block)
This use is correct. See comment in vhost.h This use of RCU has been
acked by Paul E. McKenney (paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) as well.
There are many ways to use RCU not all of which involve read_rcu_lock.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
