On 30/11/2018 13:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:37:02AM +, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> Commit 78139c94dc8c ("net: vhost: lock the vqs one by one") moved the vq
>> lock to improve scalability, but introduced a possible deadlock in
>> vhost-iotlb. vhost_iotlb_notif
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:37:02AM +, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> Commit 78139c94dc8c ("net: vhost: lock the vqs one by one") moved the vq
> lock to improve scalability, but introduced a possible deadlock in
> vhost-iotlb. vhost_iotlb_notify_vq() now takes vq->mutex while holding
> the devic
On 2018/11/30 下午7:37, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
Commit 78139c94dc8c ("net: vhost: lock the vqs one by one") moved the vq
lock to improve scalability, but introduced a possible deadlock in
vhost-iotlb. vhost_iotlb_notify_vq() now takes vq->mutex while holding
the device's IOTLB spinlock. And
Commit 78139c94dc8c ("net: vhost: lock the vqs one by one") moved the vq
lock to improve scalability, but introduced a possible deadlock in
vhost-iotlb. vhost_iotlb_notify_vq() now takes vq->mutex while holding
the device's IOTLB spinlock. And on the vhost_iotlb_miss() path, the
spinlock is taken w
