[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 06/18] xen/pvcalls: handle commands from the frontend
On Mon, 15 May 2017, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 05/15/2017 04:35 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > When the other end notifies us that there are commands to be read > > (pvcalls_back_event), wake up the backend thread to parse the command. > > > > The command ring works like most other Xen rings, so use the usual > > ring macros to read and write to it. The functions implementing the > > commands are empty stubs for now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > CC: boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx > > CC: jgross@xxxxxxxx > > --- > > drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c | 115 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 115 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c > > index 876e577..2b2a49a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c > > +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c > > @@ -62,12 +62,127 @@ static void pvcalls_back_ioworker(struct work_struct > > *work) > > { > > } > > > > +static int pvcalls_back_socket(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int pvcalls_back_connect(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int pvcalls_back_release(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int pvcalls_back_bind(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int pvcalls_back_listen(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int pvcalls_back_accept(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int pvcalls_back_poll(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int pvcalls_back_handle_cmd(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request *req) > > +{ > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + switch (req->cmd) { > > + case PVCALLS_SOCKET: > > + ret = pvcalls_back_socket(dev, req); > > + break; > > + case PVCALLS_CONNECT: > > + ret = pvcalls_back_connect(dev, req); > > + break; > > + case PVCALLS_RELEASE: > > + ret = pvcalls_back_release(dev, req); > > + break; > > + case PVCALLS_BIND: > > + ret = pvcalls_back_bind(dev, req); > > + break; > > + case PVCALLS_LISTEN: > > + ret = pvcalls_back_listen(dev, req); > > + break; > > + case PVCALLS_ACCEPT: > > + ret = pvcalls_back_accept(dev, req); > > + break; > > + case PVCALLS_POLL: > > + ret = pvcalls_back_poll(dev, req); > > + break; > > + default: > > + ret = -ENOTSUPP; > > + break; > > + } > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > static void pvcalls_back_work(struct work_struct *work) > > { > > + struct pvcalls_back_priv *priv = container_of(work, > > + struct pvcalls_back_priv, register_work); > > + int notify, notify_all = 0, more = 1; > > + struct xen_pvcalls_request req; > > + struct xenbus_device *dev = priv->dev; > > + > > + atomic_set(&priv->work, 1); > > + > > + while (more || !atomic_dec_and_test(&priv->work)) { > > + while (RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS(&priv->ring)) { > > + RING_COPY_REQUEST(&priv->ring, > > + priv->ring.req_cons++, > > + &req); > > + > > + if (pvcalls_back_handle_cmd(dev, &req) > 0) { > > Can you make handlers make "traditional" returns, i.e. <0 on error and 0 on > success? Or do you really need to distinguish 0 from >0? Today < 0 means error, 0 means OK but no notifications required, 1 means OK with notifications. Given that errors are returned to the other end using the appropriate response field (we don't do anything with an error in pvcalls_back_work), I could change this to: -1: no need for notifications (both errors and regular conditions) 0: notifications > > + RING_PUSH_RESPONSES_AND_CHECK_NOTIFY( > > + &priv->ring, notify); > > + notify_all += notify; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + if (notify_all) > > + notify_remote_via_irq(priv->irq); > > + > > + RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS(&priv->ring, more); > > + } > > } > > > > static irqreturn_t pvcalls_back_event(int irq, void *dev_id) > > { > > + struct xenbus_device *dev = dev_id; > > + struct pvcalls_back_priv *priv = NULL; > > + > > + if (dev == NULL) > > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > > + > > + priv = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev); > > + if (priv == NULL) > > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > > These two aren't errors? They are meant to handle spurious event notifications. From the Linux irq handling subsystem point of view, they are not errors. > > + > > + atomic_inc(&priv->work); > > Is this really needed? We have a new entry on the ring, so the outer loop in > pvcalls_back_work() will pick this up (by setting 'more'). This is to avoid race conditions. A notification could be delivered after RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS is called, returning more == 0, but before pvcalls_back_work completes. In that case, without priv->work, pvcalls_back_work wouldn't be rescheduled because it is still running and the work would be left undone. > > + queue_work(priv->wq, &priv->register_work); > > + > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > > } _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |