search for: fwd_cnd

...+ * by the transmitter is less than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE > > + */ > > + free_space = vvs->buf_alloc - (vvs->fwd_cnt - vvs->last_fwd_cnt); > > Locking? These fields should be accessed under tx_lock. > Yes, we need a lock, but looking in the code, vvs->fwd_cnd is written taking rx_lock (virtio_transport_dec_rx_pkt) and it is read with the tx_lock (virtio_transport_inc_tx_pkt). Maybe we should use another spin_lock shared between RX and TX for those fields or use atomic variables. What do you suggest? Thanks, Stefano

...+ * by the transmitter is less than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE > > + */ > > + free_space = vvs->buf_alloc - (vvs->fwd_cnt - vvs->last_fwd_cnt); > > Locking? These fields should be accessed under tx_lock. > Yes, we need a lock, but looking in the code, vvs->fwd_cnd is written taking rx_lock (virtio_transport_dec_rx_pkt) and it is read with the tx_lock (virtio_transport_inc_tx_pkt). Maybe we should use another spin_lock shared between RX and TX for those fields or use atomic variables. What do you suggest? Thanks, Stefano

...an VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE > > > + */ > > > + free_space = vvs->buf_alloc - (vvs->fwd_cnt - vvs->last_fwd_cnt); > > > > Locking? These fields should be accessed under tx_lock. > > > > Yes, we need a lock, but looking in the code, vvs->fwd_cnd is written > taking rx_lock (virtio_transport_dec_rx_pkt) and it is read with the > tx_lock (virtio_transport_inc_tx_pkt). > > Maybe we should use another spin_lock shared between RX and TX for those > fields or use atomic variables. > > What do you suggest? Or make vvs->...

In order to reduce the number of credit update messages, we send them only when the space available seen by the transmitter is less than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE. Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com> --- include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 + net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)