From: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com> Date: 2016-03-23 23:18:16
We need to issue a full memory barrier prior making a signalling decision.
Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/hv/ring_buffer.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ static bool hv_need_to_signal_on_read(struct hv_ring_buffer_info *rbi)u32cur_write_sz;u32pending_sz;+mb();pending_sz=READ_ONCE(rbi->ring_buffer->pending_send_sz);/* If the other end is not blocked on write don't bother. */if(pending_sz==0)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:53:53PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
We need to issue a full memory barrier prior making a signalling decision.
Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/hv/ring_buffer.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
why is this burried in a 7 patch series? Don't you want this in
4.6-final?
Please break this out into a separate patch, and redo this series.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:53:53PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
quoted hunk
We need to issue a full memory barrier prior making a signalling decision.
Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/hv/ring_buffer.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
And, are you sure this is correct? You better document the heck out of
this, why it's here, and what it is protecting. "raw" mb() calls are
really rare for good reason.
thanks,
greg k-h
From: KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com> Date: 2016-04-01 21:04:01
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 5:00 PM
To: KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org;
olaf@aepfle.de; apw@canonical.com; vkuznets@redhat.com;
jasowang@redhat.com; stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Fix a bug in
hv_need_to_signal_on_read()
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:53:53PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
quoted
We need to issue a full memory barrier prior making a signalling decision.
Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/hv/ring_buffer.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
why is this burried in a 7 patch series? Don't you want this in
4.6-final?
Please break this out into a separate patch, and redo this series.
From: KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com> Date: 2016-04-01 21:57:38
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 5:00 PM
To: KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org;
olaf@aepfle.de; apw@canonical.com; vkuznets@redhat.com;
jasowang@redhat.com; stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Fix a bug in
hv_need_to_signal_on_read()
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:53:53PM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
quoted
We need to issue a full memory barrier prior making a signalling decision.
Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/hv/ring_buffer.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
And, are you sure this is correct? You better document the heck out of
this, why it's here, and what it is protecting. "raw" mb() calls are
really rare for good reason.
Yes; I am sure I need this barrier. This is a lockless ringbuffer code where
the reader updates the read index while the writer only updates the
write index and they each sample the index modified by the other end to
make decisions. Here is the reason for having this barrier:
"If the reading of the pend_sz (in the function hv_need_to_signal_on_read)
were to be reordered and read before we commit the new read index we could
have a problem. If the host were to set the pending_sz after we have sampled pending_sz
and go to sleep before we commit the read index, we could miss sending the interrupt."
I will add the necessary documentation here.
Regards,
K. Y