On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 05:16:29PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:27:40AM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > From: Bobby Eshleman <[email protected]>
[...]
> > @@ -65,6 +66,7 @@ struct vsock_sock {
> > u32 peer_shutdown;
> > bool sent_request;
> > bool ignore_connecting_rst;
> > + enum vsock_net_mode net_mode;
> >
> > /* Protected by lock_sock(sk) */
> > u64 buffer_size;
> > @@ -256,4 +258,58 @@ static inline bool vsock_msgzerocopy_allow(const
> > struct vsock_transport *t)
> > {
> > return t->msgzerocopy_allow && t->msgzerocopy_allow();
> > }
> > +
> > +static inline enum vsock_net_mode vsock_net_mode(struct net *net)
> > +{
> > + enum vsock_net_mode ret;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_bh(&net->vsock.lock);
> > + ret = net->vsock.mode;
>
> Do we really need a spin_lock just to set/get a variable?
> What about WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE and/or atomic ?
>
> Not a strong opinion, just to check if we can do something like this:
>
> static inline enum vsock_net_mode vsock_net_mode(struct net *net)
> {
> return READ_ONCE(net->vsock.mode);
> }
>
> static inline bool vsock_net_write_mode(struct net *net, u8 mode)
> {
> // Or using test_and_set_bit() if you prefer
> if (xchg(&net->vsock.mode_locked, true))
> return false;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(net->vsock.mode, mode);
> return true;
> }
>
I think that works and seems worth it to avoid the lock on the read
side. I'll move this over for the next rev.
[...]
Best,
Bobby
