From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS oddness
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:44:26 +0000
Message-ID: <1394552666.30915.64.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
References: <5318987C.3030303@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1WNOr1-00060e-Oa
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:44:32 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5318987C.3030303@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 15:47 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering for a while why this macro looks like this:
> 
> #define RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS(_r)				\
>     ({									\
> 	unsigned int req = (_r)->sring->req_prod - (_r)->req_cons;	\
> 	unsigned int rsp = RING_SIZE(_r) -				\
> 			   ((_r)->req_cons - (_r)->rsp_prod_pvt);	\
> 	req < rsp ? req : rsp;						\
>     })
> 
> I would expect to check prod - cons, like RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES does:
> 
> #define RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_RESPONSES(_r)				\
>     ((_r)->sring->rsp_prod - (_r)->rsp_cons)
> 
> By my understanding, there is no way rsp could be smaller than req, so
> there is no point having this. Am I missing something?

Just looking at this again. All that stuff I said about wraparound was
misleading/irrelevant since req and rsp are not the pointers, but
actually the number of things. Sorry.

Is it the case that this macro considers a request to be unconsumed if
the *response* to a request is outstanding as well as if the request
itself is still on the ring?

I wonder if this apparently weird construction is due to pathological
cases when one or the other end is not picking up requests/responses?
i.e. trying to avoid deadlocking the ring or generating an interrupt
storm when the ring it is full of one or the other or something along
those lines?

Ian.