similar to: virtq questions

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:42:44AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:27 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 09:40:11AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > Looking at the ugly retry logic in virtiofs and have some questions. > > > > Hi Miklos, > > > > What are you thinking w.r.t

* Miklos Szeredi (miklos at szeredi.hu) wrote: > Looking at the ugly retry logic in virtiofs and have some questions. > First one is, where do these features come from: > > VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED > VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC > > I see that in virtiofs "packed" is off and "indirect" is on. Is this > guaranteed? I think the xdindirect is coming from

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 01:52:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:36 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > >

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 01:52:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:36 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > >

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 07:53:55PM +0800, piaojun wrote: > > > On 2019/9/6 19:52, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:36 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > [Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" > <mst at redhat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>] > > It'd be nice to have an ACK for this from the virtio maintainers. > > Thanks, > Miklos Can the patches themselves be posted to the relevant list(s)

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > [Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" > <mst at redhat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>] > > It'd be nice to have an ACK for this from the virtio maintainers. > > Thanks, > Miklos Can the patches themselves be posted to the relevant list(s)

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > 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

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 09:29:47AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:55 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > Most of the changes are limited to fuse/virtiofs. There are couple > > of changes needed in generic dax infrastructure and couple of changes > > in virtio to be able to access shared memory region. > > So

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> [ Upstream commit bb737bbe48bea9854455cb61ea1dc06e92ce586c ] In virtiofs (unlike in regular fuse) processing of async replies is serialized. This can result in a deadlock in rare corner cases when there's a circular dependency between the completion of two or more async replies. Such a deadlock can be reproduced with xfstests:generic/503 if

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> [ Upstream commit bb737bbe48bea9854455cb61ea1dc06e92ce586c ] In virtiofs (unlike in regular fuse) processing of async replies is serialized. This can result in a deadlock in rare corner cases when there's a circular dependency between the completion of two or more async replies. Such a deadlock can be reproduced with xfstests:generic/503 if

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

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 05:12:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Git tree for this version is available here: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/fuse.git#virtiofs-v5 > > Only post patches that actually add virtiofs (virtiofs-v5-base..virtiofs-v5). > > I've folded the series from Vivek and fixed a couple of TODO comments > myself. AFAICS two

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 Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 05:12:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Git tree for this version is available here: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/fuse.git#virtiofs-v5 > > Only post patches that actually add virtiofs (virtiofs-v5-base..virtiofs-v5). > > I've folded the series from Vivek and fixed a couple of TODO comments > myself. AFAICS two

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 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 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);

> On Dec 3, 2007 5:19 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos at szeredi.hu> wrote: > > > Yes it is weird. I hope you can help me with this problem as sshfs is > > > so much simpler than nfs. > > > > Can you please do one more thing: start up sshfs normally, then on the > > server do a strace of the sftp-server process: > > > > strace -o /tmp/strace.log

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:55:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Endian-ness for fuse header also looks wrong. [...] > > +struct virtio_fs_forget { > > + struct fuse_in_header ih; > > + struct fuse_forget_in arg; > > These structures are all native endian. > > Passing them to host will make