search for: spinlock_t

...nclude <limits.h> + +#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES 64 +#define cache_line_size() SMP_CACHE_BYTES +#define ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp __attribute__ ((aligned (SMP_CACHE_BYTES))) +#define unlikely(x) (__builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)) +#define ALIGN(x, a) (((x) + (a) - 1) / (a) * (a)) +typedef pthread_spinlock_t spinlock_t; + +typedef int gfp_t; +static void *kzalloc(unsigned size, gfp_t gfp) +{ + void *p = memalign(64, size); + if (!p) + return p; + memset(p, 0, size); + + return p; +} + +static void kfree(void *p) +{ + if (p) + free(p); +} + +static void spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock) +{ + int r = p...

...nclude <limits.h> + +#define SMP_CACHE_BYTES 64 +#define cache_line_size() SMP_CACHE_BYTES +#define ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp __attribute__ ((aligned (SMP_CACHE_BYTES))) +#define unlikely(x) (__builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)) +#define ALIGN(x, a) (((x) + (a) - 1) / (a) * (a)) +typedef pthread_spinlock_t spinlock_t; + +typedef int gfp_t; +static void *kzalloc(unsigned size, gfp_t gfp) +{ + void *p = memalign(64, size); + if (!p) + return p; + memset(p, 0, size); + + return p; +} + +static void kfree(void *p) +{ + if (p) + free(p); +} + +static void spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock) +{ + int r = p...

...a); > Does it work much worse if we just use as many queues as hardware supports, allocating as much memory as necessary? > @@ -24,8 +26,8 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *virtblk_wq; > struct virtio_blk > { > struct virtio_device *vdev; > - struct virtqueue *vq; > - spinlock_t vq_lock; > + struct virtqueue *vq[MAX_NUM_VQ]; > + spinlock_t vq_lock[MAX_NUM_VQ]; array of struct { *vq; spinlock_t lock; } would use more memory but would get us better locality. It might even make sense to add padding to avoid cacheline sharing between two unrelated VQs. Want to t...

...a); > Does it work much worse if we just use as many queues as hardware supports, allocating as much memory as necessary? > @@ -24,8 +26,8 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *virtblk_wq; > struct virtio_blk > { > struct virtio_device *vdev; > - struct virtqueue *vq; > - spinlock_t vq_lock; > + struct virtqueue *vq[MAX_NUM_VQ]; > + spinlock_t vq_lock[MAX_NUM_VQ]; array of struct { *vq; spinlock_t lock; } would use more memory but would get us better locality. It might even make sense to add padding to avoid cacheline sharing between two unrelated VQs. Want to t...

...Hunk #1 FAILED at 399. Hunk #2 succeeded at 519 (offset 30 lines). 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sched.h.rej this is the output from that file *************** *** 399,404 **** u32 self_exec_id; /* Protection of (de-)allocation: mm, files, fs, tty */ spinlock_t alloc_lock; }; /* --- 399,407 ---- u32 self_exec_id; /* Protection of (de-)allocation: mm, files, fs, tty */ spinlock_t alloc_lock; + + /* journalling filesystem info */ + void *journal_info; }; /*

The in-vq operations were protected by a lock, but the out-vq operations were not. This caused panics / errors as described in patch 2. Fix that. The first patch renames the existing cvq_lock to c_ivq_lock to match c_ivq. The second patch introduces the c_ovq_lock for the c_ovq. Please apply. I also believe this is a candidate for stable. v2: * Use spin_lock instead of spin_lock_irq.

The in-vq operations were protected by a lock, but the out-vq operations were not. This caused panics / errors as described in patch 2. Fix that. The first patch renames the existing cvq_lock to c_ivq_lock to match c_ivq. The second patch introduces the c_ovq_lock for the c_ovq. Please apply. I also believe this is a candidate for stable. v2: * Use spin_lock instead of spin_lock_irq.

The in-vq operations were protected by a lock, but the out-vq operations were not. This caused panics / errors as described in patch 2. Fix that. The first patch renames the existing cvq_lock to c_ivq_lock to match c_ivq. The second patch introduces the c_ovq_lock for the c_ovq. Please apply. I also believe this is a candidate for stable. Amit Shah (2): virtio: console: rename cvq_lock

The in-vq operations were protected by a lock, but the out-vq operations were not. This caused panics / errors as described in patch 2. Fix that. The first patch renames the existing cvq_lock to c_ivq_lock to match c_ivq. The second patch introduces the c_ovq_lock for the c_ovq. Please apply. I also believe this is a candidate for stable. Amit Shah (2): virtio: console: rename cvq_lock

...ringtest/ptr_ring.c +++ b/tools/virtio/ringtest/ptr_ring.c @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ #define likely(x) (__builtin_expect(!!(x), 1)) #define ALIGN(x, a) (((x) + (a) - 1) / (a) * (a)) #define SIZE_MAX (~(size_t)0) +#define KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE SIZE_MAX +#define BUG_ON(x) assert(x) typedef pthread_spinlock_t spinlock_t; @@ -57,6 +59,9 @@ static void kfree(void *p) free(p); } +#define kvmalloc_array kmalloc_array +#define kvfree kfree + static void spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock) { int r = pthread_spin_init(lock, 0); -- MST

Hi, (sorry for my mistake in not deleting the rest of the message just now) The problem seems to be here in zaptel.c (and torisa.c) #ifdef DEFINE_SPINLOCK static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zaptimerlock); static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bigzaplock); #else static spinlock_t zaptimerlock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; static spinlock_t bigzaplock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; #endif If I remark out as follows: //#ifdef DEFINE_SPINLOCK //static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(zaptimerlock); //static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(bigzaplock); //#else static spinlock_t zaptimerlock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; static spinl...

...8PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:29:40PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > @@ -24,8 +26,8 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *virtblk_wq; > > struct virtio_blk > > { > > struct virtio_device *vdev; > > - struct virtqueue *vq; > > - spinlock_t vq_lock; > > + struct virtqueue *vq[MAX_NUM_VQ]; > > + spinlock_t vq_lock[MAX_NUM_VQ]; > > array of struct { > *vq; > spinlock_t lock; > } > would use more memory but would get us better locality. > It might even make sense to add padding to avoid > cach...

...r/virtio_console.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > > @@ -1325,24 +1325,24 @@ static void set_console_size(struct port *port, u16 rows, u16 cols) > > port->cons.ws.ws_col = cols; > > } > > > > -static unsigned int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) > > +static int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) > > { > > struct port_buffer *buf; > > - unsigned int nr_added_bufs; > > + int nr_added_bufs; > > int ret; > > > > nr_added_bufs = 0; > > do { > > buf...

...r/virtio_console.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c > > @@ -1325,24 +1325,24 @@ static void set_console_size(struct port *port, u16 rows, u16 cols) > > port->cons.ws.ws_col = cols; > > } > > > > -static unsigned int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) > > +static int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) > > { > > struct port_buffer *buf; > > - unsigned int nr_added_bufs; > > + int nr_added_bufs; > > int ret; > > > > nr_added_bufs = 0; > > do { > > buf...

...:) > > # ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-crypto-add-virtio-crypto-driver.patch > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 1873 lines checked > > 0001-crypto-add-virtio-crypto-driver.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. Looks like a bug in checkpatch.pl: # check for spinlock_t definitions without a comment. if ($line =~ /^.\s*(struct\s+mutex|spinlock_t)\s+\S+;/ || $line =~ /^.\s*(DEFINE_MUTEX)\s*\(/) { my $which = $1; if (!ctx_has_comment($first_line, $linenr)) { CHK("UNCOMMENTED_DEFINITION", "$1 defi...

...:) > > # ./scripts/checkpatch.pl 0001-crypto-add-virtio-crypto-driver.patch > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 1873 lines checked > > 0001-crypto-add-virtio-crypto-driver.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission. Looks like a bug in checkpatch.pl: # check for spinlock_t definitions without a comment. if ($line =~ /^.\s*(struct\s+mutex|spinlock_t)\s+\S+;/ || $line =~ /^.\s*(DEFINE_MUTEX)\s*\(/) { my $which = $1; if (!ctx_has_comment($first_line, $linenr)) { CHK("UNCOMMENTED_DEFINITION", "$1 defi...

....c index 7270e7b69262..9e6534fd1aa4 100644 --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c @@ -1325,24 +1325,24 @@ static void set_console_size(struct port *port, u16 rows, u16 cols) port->cons.ws.ws_col = cols; } -static unsigned int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) +static int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) { struct port_buffer *buf; - unsigned int nr_added_bufs; + int nr_added_bufs; int ret; nr_added_bufs = 0; do { buf = alloc_buf(vq->vdev, PAGE_SIZE, 0); if (!buf) - break; + return -ENOMEM; spin_lock_i...

....c index 7270e7b69262..9e6534fd1aa4 100644 --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c @@ -1325,24 +1325,24 @@ static void set_console_size(struct port *port, u16 rows, u16 cols) port->cons.ws.ws_col = cols; } -static unsigned int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) +static int fill_queue(struct virtqueue *vq, spinlock_t *lock) { struct port_buffer *buf; - unsigned int nr_added_bufs; + int nr_added_bufs; int ret; nr_added_bufs = 0; do { buf = alloc_buf(vq->vdev, PAGE_SIZE, 0); if (!buf) - break; + return -ENOMEM; spin_lock_i...

On 2020/8/4 ??5:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> ? +struct vhost_vring_call { >>>>> +??? struct eventfd_ctx *ctx; >>>>> +??? struct irq_bypass_producer producer; >>>>> +??? spinlock_t ctx_lock; >>>> It's not clear to me why we need ctx_lock here. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> Hi Jason, >>> >>> we use this lock to protect the eventfd_ctx and irq from race conditions, >> We don't support irq notification from vDPA...

On 2020/8/4 ??5:21, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> ? +struct vhost_vring_call { >>>>> +??? struct eventfd_ctx *ctx; >>>>> +??? struct irq_bypass_producer producer; >>>>> +??? spinlock_t ctx_lock; >>>> It's not clear to me why we need ctx_lock here. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> Hi Jason, >>> >>> we use this lock to protect the eventfd_ctx and irq from race conditions, >> We don't support irq notification from vDPA...