From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EAFA0032; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:25:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62334067B; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:25:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E5440042 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:25:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1650612346; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=seA/0vYtDZ4Vl5ewrzSojIF5ex9bb8NGex3m9Bft5a4=; b=fV4H7sdC7AT2uTQHM5WgvHfTnUlfZh9nx0FqAbmY/Yk/Eeq3I2mIg7b9s4sZ+koe/7svyP gg/oq84R5exw0p8VXBy637HqqJNZMzs6oYuwOGDVEn7nkcy/9ITv5DFCGFYgnFtiqDKJIk 5LUaBfN/DOH5qUPtHHtQZMP0LgWSynw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-611-W6MCM74SNcK8iYaoc5_nmg-1; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 03:25:40 -0400 X-MC-Unique: W6MCM74SNcK8iYaoc5_nmg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2357C86B8A1; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.39.208.35] (unknown [10.39.208.35]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA9F94229A7; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:25:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <6880cc3c-6620-e58d-14de-65f83ea2d91b@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:25:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/8] vhost: annotate need reply handling To: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org, chenbo.xia@intel.com, jiayu.hu@intel.com, yuanx.wang@intel.com, xuan.ding@intel.com References: <20220328121758.26632-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20220411110013.18624-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20220411110013.18624-6-david.marchand@redhat.com> From: Maxime Coquelin In-Reply-To: <20220411110013.18624-6-david.marchand@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.9 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 4/11/22 13:00, David Marchand wrote: > When a reply from the slave is required (VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY flag), > a spinlock is taken before sending the message. > This spinlock is released if an error occurs when sending the message, and > once a reply is received. > > A problem is that this lock is taken under a branch and annotating > conditionally held locks is not supported. > The code seems currently correct and, while we may rework the code, > it is easier to simply skip checks on slave_req_lock for those helpers. > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand > --- > lib/vhost/vhost_user.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c > index ee276a28f1..d101d5072f 100644 > --- a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c > +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c > @@ -2854,6 +2854,7 @@ send_vhost_reply(struct virtio_net *dev, int sockfd, struct vhu_msg_context *ctx > static int > send_vhost_slave_message(struct virtio_net *dev, > struct vhu_msg_context *ctx) > + __rte_no_thread_safety_analysis > { > int ret; > > @@ -3165,6 +3166,7 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd) > > static int process_slave_message_reply(struct virtio_net *dev, > const struct vhu_msg_context *ctx) > + __rte_no_thread_safety_analysis > { > struct vhu_msg_context msg_reply; > int ret; Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin Thanks, Maxime