From patchwork Mon Apr 11 11:00:10 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: David Marchand X-Patchwork-Id: 109584 X-Patchwork-Delegate: david.marchand@redhat.com Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8EAA0093; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:01:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C633E42800; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:00:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E567A42802 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:00:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1649674847; 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=qjo1x/2/56bkF14EaV+Qw26PWqPfUsOuM5SU5Rz+zOY=; b=YpURmkP+tXnm1QMPdpXdcvZ9dQa0K1oRL7CSwlKTKbOYDVNmhZ6vKCyBQ7I+Q9xSOybXGq 8BsZT86NF6fBjBBwrdUtsFORGtp9eMBaR4z+OztuGA631YDSqW4VFovAmeXj9Grh4cpcvu MkFXiH8i+CYLAFgrKAynE5mb1V1j3oE= 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-20-s1JtIzuUM6-ETiiplbjgKg-1; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 07:00:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: s1JtIzuUM6-ETiiplbjgKg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF95D1857F07; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:00:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dmarchan.remote.csb (unknown [10.40.192.83]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D74140EBD5; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:00:41 +0000 (UTC) From: David Marchand To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, chenbo.xia@intel.com, jiayu.hu@intel.com, yuanx.wang@intel.com, xuan.ding@intel.com Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 5/8] vhost: annotate need reply handling Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:00:10 +0200 Message-Id: <20220411110013.18624-6-david.marchand@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20220411110013.18624-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> References: <20220328121758.26632-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <20220411110013.18624-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.7 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=david.marchand@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com 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 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 Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin --- 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;