Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "dequeue_pag".
Did you mean:
dequeue_page
2017 Oct 22
1
[PATCH v1 1/3] virtio-balloon: replace the coarse-grained balloon_lock
...;> page = balloon_page_dequeue(vb_dev_info);
> > If balloon_page_dequeue() can be concurrently called by both host's request
> > and guest's OOM event, is (!dequeued_page) test in balloon_page_dequeue() safe?
>
>
> I'm not sure about the question. The "dequeue_page" is a local variable
> in the function, why would it be unsafe for two invocations (the shared
> b_dev_info->pages are operated under a lock)?
I'm not MM person nor virtio person. I'm commenting from point of view of
safe programming. My question is, isn't there possibil...
2017 Oct 22
1
[PATCH v1 1/3] virtio-balloon: replace the coarse-grained balloon_lock
...;> page = balloon_page_dequeue(vb_dev_info);
> > If balloon_page_dequeue() can be concurrently called by both host's request
> > and guest's OOM event, is (!dequeued_page) test in balloon_page_dequeue() safe?
>
>
> I'm not sure about the question. The "dequeue_page" is a local variable
> in the function, why would it be unsafe for two invocations (the shared
> b_dev_info->pages are operated under a lock)?
I'm not MM person nor virtio person. I'm commenting from point of view of
safe programming. My question is, isn't there possibil...
2017 Oct 22
2
[PATCH v1 1/3] virtio-balloon: replace the coarse-grained balloon_lock
Wei Wang wrote:
> The balloon_lock was used to synchronize the access demand to elements
> of struct virtio_balloon and its queue operations (please see commit
> e22504296d). This prevents the concurrent run of the leak_balloon and
> fill_balloon functions, thereby resulting in a deadlock issue on OOM:
>
> fill_balloon: take balloon_lock and wait for OOM to get some memory;
>
2017 Oct 22
2
[PATCH v1 1/3] virtio-balloon: replace the coarse-grained balloon_lock
Wei Wang wrote:
> The balloon_lock was used to synchronize the access demand to elements
> of struct virtio_balloon and its queue operations (please see commit
> e22504296d). This prevents the concurrent run of the leak_balloon and
> fill_balloon functions, thereby resulting in a deadlock issue on OOM:
>
> fill_balloon: take balloon_lock and wait for OOM to get some memory;
>
2017 Oct 22
0
[PATCH v1 1/3] virtio-balloon: replace the coarse-grained balloon_lock
...OON_PAGES_PER_PAGE) {
>> page = balloon_page_dequeue(vb_dev_info);
> If balloon_page_dequeue() can be concurrently called by both host's request
> and guest's OOM event, is (!dequeued_page) test in balloon_page_dequeue() safe?
I'm not sure about the question. The "dequeue_page" is a local variable
in the function, why would it be unsafe for two invocations (the shared
b_dev_info->pages are operated under a lock)?
> Is such concurrency needed?
Thanks for this question, it triggers another optimization, which I want to
introduce if this direction could be a...