Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 11/18] xen/pvcalls: implement accept command

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 02/06/17 21:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Implement the accept command by calling inet_accept. To avoid blocking
> in the kernel, call inet_accept(O_NONBLOCK) from a workqueue, which get
> scheduled on sk_data_ready (for a passive socket, it means that there
> are connections to accept).
> 
> Use the reqcopy field to store the request. Accept the new socket from
> the delayed work function, create a new sock_mapping for it, map
> the indexes page and data ring, and reply to the other end. Allocate an
> ioworker for the socket.
> 
> Only support one outstanding blocking accept request for every socket at
> any time.
> 
> Add a field to sock_mapping to remember the passive socket from which an
> active socket was created.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx
> CC: jgross@xxxxxxxx
> ---
>  drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c | 109 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> index a75586e..f1173f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/pvcalls-back.c
> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct pvcalls_ioworker {
>  struct sock_mapping {
>       struct list_head list;
>       struct pvcalls_fedata *priv;
> +     struct sockpass_mapping *sockpass;
>       struct socket *sock;
>       uint64_t id;
>       grant_ref_t ref;
> @@ -275,10 +276,79 @@ static int pvcalls_back_release(struct xenbus_device 
> *dev,
>  
>  static void __pvcalls_back_accept(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
> +     struct sockpass_mapping *mappass = container_of(
> +             work, struct sockpass_mapping, register_work);
> +     struct sock_mapping *map;
> +     struct pvcalls_ioworker *iow;
> +     struct pvcalls_fedata *priv;
> +     struct socket *sock;
> +     struct xen_pvcalls_response *rsp;
> +     struct xen_pvcalls_request *req;
> +     int notify;
> +     int ret = -EINVAL;
> +     unsigned long flags;
> +
> +     priv = mappass->priv;
> +     /* We only need to check the value of "cmd" atomically on read. */
> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> +     req = &mappass->reqcopy;
> +     if (req->cmd != PVCALLS_ACCEPT) {
> +             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> +             return;
> +     }
> +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);

What about:
        req = &mappass->reqcopy;
        if (ACCESS_ONCE(req->cmd) != PVCALLS_ACCEPT)
                return;

I can't see the need for taking a lock here.

> +
> +     sock = sock_alloc();
> +     if (sock == NULL)
> +             goto out_error;
> +     sock->type = mappass->sock->type;
> +     sock->ops = mappass->sock->ops;
> +
> +     ret = inet_accept(mappass->sock, sock, O_NONBLOCK, true);
> +     if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
> +             sock_release(sock);
> +             goto out_error;
> +     }
> +
> +     map = pvcalls_new_active_socket(priv,
> +                                     req->u.accept.id_new,
> +                                     req->u.accept.ref,
> +                                     req->u.accept.evtchn,
> +                                     sock);
> +     if (!map) {
> +             sock_release(sock);
> +             goto out_error;
> +     }
> +
> +     map->sockpass = mappass;
> +     iow = &map->ioworker;
> +     atomic_inc(&map->read);
> +     atomic_inc(&map->io);
> +     queue_work_on(iow->cpu, iow->wq, &iow->register_work);
> +
> +out_error:
> +     rsp = RING_GET_RESPONSE(&priv->ring, priv->ring.rsp_prod_pvt++);
> +     rsp->req_id = req->req_id;
> +     rsp->cmd = req->cmd;
> +     rsp->u.accept.id = req->u.accept.id;
> +     rsp->ret = ret;
> +     RING_PUSH_RESPONSES_AND_CHECK_NOTIFY(&priv->ring, notify);
> +     if (notify)
> +             notify_remote_via_irq(priv->irq);
> +
> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> +     mappass->reqcopy.cmd = 0;
> +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);

ACCESS_ONCE(mappass->reqcopy.cmd) = 0;

>  }
>  
>  static void pvcalls_pass_sk_data_ready(struct sock *sock)
>  {
> +     struct sockpass_mapping *mappass = sock->sk_user_data;
> +
> +     if (mappass == NULL)
> +             return;
> +
> +     queue_work(mappass->wq, &mappass->register_work);
>  }
>  
>  static int pvcalls_back_bind(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> @@ -380,7 +450,44 @@ static int pvcalls_back_listen(struct xenbus_device *dev,
>  static int pvcalls_back_accept(struct xenbus_device *dev,
>                              struct xen_pvcalls_request *req)
>  {
> -     return 0;
> +     struct pvcalls_fedata *priv;
> +     struct sockpass_mapping *mappass;
> +     int ret = -EINVAL;
> +     struct xen_pvcalls_response *rsp;
> +     unsigned long flags;
> +
> +     priv = dev_get_drvdata(&dev->dev);
> +
> +     mappass = radix_tree_lookup(&priv->socketpass_mappings,
> +             req->u.accept.id);
> +     if (mappass == NULL)
> +             goto out_error;
> +
> +     /* 
> +      * Limitation of the current implementation: only support one
> +      * concurrent accept or poll call on one socket.
> +      */
> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> +     if (mappass->reqcopy.cmd != 0) {
> +             spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> +             ret = -EINTR;
> +             goto out_error;
> +     }
> +
> +     mappass->reqcopy = *req;

This time you need the lock, however you should use:

ACCESS_ONCE(mappass->reqcopy) = *req;

> +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mappass->copy_lock, flags);
> +     queue_work(mappass->wq, &mappass->register_work);
> +
> +     /* Tell the caller we don't need to send back a notification yet */
> +     return -1;
> +
> +out_error:
> +     rsp = RING_GET_RESPONSE(&priv->ring, priv->ring.rsp_prod_pvt++);
> +     rsp->req_id = req->req_id;
> +     rsp->cmd = req->cmd;
> +     rsp->u.accept.id = req->u.accept.id;
> +     rsp->ret = ret;
> +     return ret;

return 0?


Juergen

>  }
>  
>  static int pvcalls_back_poll(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel