From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] vhost: Add VHOST PMD
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:45:12 +0800
Message-ID: <20151218074512.GA18863@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1447392031-24970-3-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <1448355603-21275-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
 <1448355603-21275-3-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com, yuanhan.liu@intel.com
To: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>,
	"Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF1C5A72
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:44:56 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1448355603-21275-3-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 06:00:02PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> +static uint16_t
> +eth_vhost_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
> +{
> +	struct vhost_queue *r = q;
> +	uint16_t i, nb_rx = 0;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(rte_atomic32_read(&r->allow_queuing) == 0))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	rte_atomic32_set(&r->while_queuing, 1);
> +
> +	if (unlikely(rte_atomic32_read(&r->allow_queuing) == 0))
> +		goto out;

I'm not quite famililar with PMD driver yet, but as far as I know,
rte_eth_rx/tx_burst() does not provide any garantee on concurrent
dequeuing/queuing. If that's true, vhost pmd could (and should)
not do that, to keep the consistency.

On the other hand, rte_vhost_dequeue/enqueue_burst() already has
such support since the beginning: above check is redundant then.
However, FYI, Huawei has just (internally) proposed to remove
it, as he thinks that's application's duty.

So, in neither way, we should not do that.

	--yliu