All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
Cc: "tee-dev@lists.linaro.org" <tee-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/5] xen/arm: optee: check for preemption while freeing shared buffers
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 19:47:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ftl1fgak.fsf@epam.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2a5adc32-80fb-d67f-46e5-074ca92fa372@arm.com>


Julien Grall writes:

> Hi Volodymyr,
>
> On 9/11/19 7:53 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>
>> Julien Grall writes:
>>
>>> Hi Volodymyr,
>>>
>>> On 8/23/19 7:48 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>>> Now we have limit for one shared buffer size, so we can be sure that
>>>> one call to free_optee_shm_buf() will not free all
>>>> MAX_TOTAL_SMH_BUF_PG pages at once. Thus, we now can check for
>>>> hypercall_preempt_check() in the loop inside
>>>> optee_relinquish_resources() and this will ensure that we are not
>>>> missing preemption.
>>>
>>> I am not sure to understand the correlation between the two
>>> sentences. Even if previously the guest could pin up to
>>> MAX_TOTAL_SHM_BUF_PG in one call, a well-behaved guest would result to
>>> do multiple calls and therefore preemption would have been useful.
>> Looks like now I don't understand you.
>>
>> I'm talking about shared buffers. We have limited shared buffer to some
>> reasonable size. There is bad- or well-behaving guests in this context,
>> because guest can't share one big buffer in multiple calls. In other
>> worlds, if guest *needs* to share 512MB buffer with OP-TEE, it will be
>> forced to do this in one call. But we are forbidding big buffers right
>> now.
>>
>> optee_relinquish_resources() is called during domain destruction. At
>> this time we can have a number of still living shared buffers, each of
>> one is no bigger than 512 pages. Thanks to this, we can call
>> hypercall_preempt_check() only in optee_relinquish_resources(), but not
>> in free_optee_shm_buf().
>
> I understand what you mean, however my point is that this patch does
> not dependent of the previous patch. Even if this patch goes alone,
> you will improve well-behaved guest. For ill-behaved guest, the
> problem will stay the same so no change.
>
Ah, I see now. Okay, I'll rework the commit description.

-- 
Volodymyr Babchuk at EPAM
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-12 19:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-23 18:48 [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/5] arch/arm: optee: fix TODOs and remove "experimental" status Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-08-23 18:48 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/5] xen/arm: optee: impose limit on shared buffer size Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-09 22:11   ` Julien Grall
2019-09-11 18:48     ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-12 19:32       ` Julien Grall
2019-09-12 19:45         ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-12 19:51           ` Julien Grall
2019-09-16 15:26             ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-17 10:49               ` Julien Grall
2019-09-17 12:28                 ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-17 18:46                   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-23 18:48 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/5] xen/arm: optee: check for preemption while freeing shared buffers Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-09 22:19   ` Julien Grall
2019-09-11 18:53     ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-12 19:39       ` Julien Grall
2019-09-12 19:47         ` Volodymyr Babchuk [this message]
2019-08-23 18:48 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/5] xen/arm: optee: limit number of " Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-08-23 18:48 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/5] xen/arm: optee: handle share buffer translation error Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-10 11:17   ` Julien Grall
2019-09-11 18:32     ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-12 18:55       ` Julien Grall
2019-08-23 18:48 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/5] xen/arm: optee: remove experimental status Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-08-23 19:05   ` Julien Grall
2019-08-23 19:20     ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-09 21:31       ` Julien Grall
2019-09-11 18:41         ` Volodymyr Babchuk
2019-09-12 19:00           ` Julien Grall

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87ftl1fgak.fsf@epam.com \
    --to=volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com \
    --cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=tee-dev@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.