[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen-bus: Avoid rewriting identical values to xenstore
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:40:05PM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: 21 August 2019 10:20 > > To: qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>; Stefano Stabellini > > <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paul > > Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] xen-bus: Avoid rewriting identical values to xenstore > > > > When QEMU receive a xenstore watch event suggesting that the "state" or > > "online" status of the frontend or the backend changed, it record this > > in its own state but it also re-write the value back into xenstore even > > so there were no changed. This trigger an unnecessary xenstore watch > > event which QEMU will process again (and maybe the frontend as well). > > > > Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > hw/xen/xen-bus.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/xen/xen-bus.c b/hw/xen/xen-bus.c > > index 982eca4533..c83f07424a 100644 > > --- a/hw/xen/xen-bus.c > > +++ b/hw/xen/xen-bus.c > > @@ -481,20 +481,27 @@ static int xen_device_backend_scanf(XenDevice > > *xendev, const char *key, > > return rc; > > } > > > > -void xen_device_backend_set_state(XenDevice *xendev, > > - enum xenbus_state state) > > +static bool xen_device_backend_record_state(XenDevice *xendev, > > + enum xenbus_state state) > > { > > const char *type = object_get_typename(OBJECT(xendev)); > > > > if (xendev->backend_state == state) { > > - return; > > + return false; > > } > > > > trace_xen_device_backend_state(type, xendev->name, > > xs_strstate(state)); > > > > xendev->backend_state = state; > > - xen_device_backend_printf(xendev, "state", "%u", state); > > + return true; > > +} > > + > > +void xen_device_backend_set_state(XenDevice *xendev, > > + enum xenbus_state state) > > +{ > > + if (xen_device_backend_record_state(xendev, state)) > > + xen_device_backend_printf(xendev, "state", "%u", state); > > } > > > > enum xenbus_state xen_device_backend_get_state(XenDevice *xendev) > > @@ -502,7 +509,8 @@ enum xenbus_state > > xen_device_backend_get_state(XenDevice *xendev) > > return xendev->backend_state; > > } > > > > -static void xen_device_backend_set_online(XenDevice *xendev, bool online) > > +static void xen_device_backend_set_online(XenDevice *xendev, bool online, > > + bool export) > > { > > const char *type = object_get_typename(OBJECT(xendev)); > > > > @@ -513,7 +521,8 @@ static void xen_device_backend_set_online(XenDevice > > *xendev, bool online) > > trace_xen_device_backend_online(type, xendev->name, online); > > > > xendev->backend_online = online; > > - xen_device_backend_printf(xendev, "online", "%u", online); > > + if (export) > > + xen_device_backend_printf(xendev, "online", "%u", online); > > } > > > > Perhaps the behaviour of backend_set_state() and backend_set_online() could > be the same? I.e. they both take an 'export' (or perhaps 'publish'?) > parameter and only write xenstore if that is true. (I realise that would > involve modifying xen-block to pass 'true' as the extra export/publish param, > but I think it would be neater overall). I've actually did it this way for backend_set_state() because the only reason to update internal states without writing that state into xenstore is because the xenstore state changed, so {front,back}end_changed() are the only function that don't want/need to write the new state into xenstore. I wanted to avoid misuse of the extra export/publish param in future backend drivers. As for frontend_set_state() and backend_set_online(), they are only used in xen-bus.c, creating a new function didn't seems as needed. I kind of think that maybe I should go further and also have frontend_record_state() is it could be possible to have frontend drivers in QEMU. (and maybe record_online so they all looks the same.) So, would you prefer to have the extra param to *_set_*() that should be "true" outside of *_changed(), or the extra functions like I did with backend_{set,record}_state() ? Thanks, -- Anthony PERARD _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |