search for: fiqs

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:48:55PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > diff --git a/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h b/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h > index 85e2dcad68c1..04e2c000d63f 100644 > --- a/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h > +++ b/fs/fuse/fuse_i.h > @@ -479,6 +479,11 @@ struct fuse_iqueue_ops { > */ > void (*wake_pending_and_unlock)(struct fuse_iqueue *fiq) > __releases(fiq->waitq.lock); > + > + /**

Soon I will make virtio_fs object reference counted, where reference will be taken by device as well as by fuse_conn (fuse_conn->fuse_iqueue->fiq_priv). When fuse_connection is going away, it should put its reference on virtio_fs object. So add a fuse_iqueue method which can be used to call into virtio_fs to put the reference on the object (fiq_priv). Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal

Hello, As part of a try to make clang/llvm build Rockbox, we realized that clang and llvm have no support for irq/fiq calling convention on ARM which is implemented using the interrupt("IRQ") and interrupt("FIQ") attributes on GCC. Although it is always possible to implement those in assembly, I would like to know if there has been some work done to implement this the same way

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:55:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: [..] > What's with all of the TODOs? Some of these are really scary, > looks like they need to be figured out before this is merged. Hi Michael, One of the issue I noticed is races w.r.t device removal and super block initialization. I am about to post a set of patches which take care of these races and also get rid of

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:15:15PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:55:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > [..] > > What's with all of the TODOs? Some of these are really scary, > > looks like they need to be figured out before this is merged. > > Hi Michael, > > One of the issue I noticed is races w.r.t device removal and super >

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:19:31PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Michael, > > Here's a v6 of the virtiofs code (fuse.git#virtiofs-v6). I think we've > addressed all your comments. > > Would you mind giving it another look, and if you're satisfied acking this > patch? > > Thanks, > Miklos

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Add a basic file system module for virtio-fs. This does not yet contain > shared data support between host and guest or metadata coherency speedups. > However it is already significantly faster than virtio-9p. > > Design Overview > ===============

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Add a basic file system module for virtio-fs. This does not yet contain > shared data support between host and guest or metadata coherency speedups. > However it is already significantly faster than virtio-9p. > > Design Overview > ===============

Hi, We have couple of places which can result in deadlock. This patch series fixes these. We can be called with fc->bg_lock (for background requests) while submitting a request. This leads to two constraints. - We can't end requests in submitter's context and call fuse_end_request() as it tries to take fc->bg_lock as well. So queue these requests on a list and use a worker to

Amaury, > GCC does, or if there is no plan to support this in future ? I am no llvm > expert but with some help I think I could implement this if it is a wanted > feature. The answer is easy - noone needed them in the past, thus they were not implemented... -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi, Michael Tsirkin pointed out issues w.r.t various locking related TODO items and races w.r.t device removal. In this first round of cleanups, I have taken care of most pressing issues. These patches apply on top of following. git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/fuse.git#virtiofs-v4 I have tested these patches with mount/umount and device removal using qemu monitor. For

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:03:39AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: [..] > > static void virtio_fs_hiprio_dispatch_work(struct work_struct *work) > > @@ -502,6 +522,7 @@ static int virtio_fs_setup_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev, > > names[VQ_HIPRIO] = fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].name; > > INIT_WORK(&fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].done_work, virtio_fs_hiprio_done_work);

fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:983:20: warning: variable fc set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] It is not used since commit 7ee1e2e631db ("virtiofs: No need to check fpq->connected state") Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing at huawei.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c index

Hi, I managed to get my hand on a Xenyx x2222usb at a friend's, so I took the opportunity to do some testing with it. Pi model B, one of the more recent editions (I also had an older one from just after they were introduced and that one had trouble rebooting when attaching/detaching network so I ditched that one). Two usb onboard. Xenyx x2222usb has the same usb chip 08bb:2902 Texas

Hi u, On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, unosonic wrote: > well, sort of, with a PI, Ices2 as a client, and an USB audio device as > input, e.g. a "class compliant" audio recoder like Olympus LS5, Zoom H2 > etc., but also a little mixer like the Behringer Xenyx 302 USB. > The problem i've encountered is with USB class1 devices, i.e. so called > "full speed" USB (which is

Currently we are duplicating logic to send forgets at two places. Consolidate the code by calling one helper function. This also uses virtqueue_add_outbuf() instead of virtqueue_add_sgs(). Former is simpler to call. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)

Hi Miklos, Here are few small cleanups for virtiofs for 5.5. I had received some comments from Michael Tsirkin on original virtiofs patches and these cleanups are result of these comments. Thanks Vivek Vivek Goyal (3): virtiofs: Use a common function to send forget virtiofs: Do not send forget request "struct list_head" element virtiofs: Use completions while waiting for queue

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:48:56PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > This object is used both by fuse_connection as well virt device. So make > this object reference counted and that makes it easy to define life cycle > of the object. > > Now deivce can be removed while filesystem is still mounted. This will > cleanup all the virtqueues but virtio_fs object will still be around and

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:48:56PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > This object is used both by fuse_connection as well virt device. So make > this object reference counted and that makes it easy to define life cycle > of the object. > > Now deivce can be removed while filesystem is still mounted. This will > cleanup all the virtqueues but virtio_fs object will still be around and

When the Virtio queue is full, a work item is scheduled to execute in 1ms that retries adding the request to the queue. This is a large amount of time on the scale on which a virtio-fs device can operate. When using a DPU this is around 40us baseline without going to a remote server (4k, QD=1). This patch queues requests when the Virtio queue is full, and when a completed request is taken off,