From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: "iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] iommu: Do not attempt to re-lock the iommu device when probing
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:15:53 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZNODeRzC+Rtkta1U@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276EA0632C6E65C83397B1A8C12A@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 04:01:42AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 1:27 AM
> >
> > @@ -1800,11 +1801,18 @@ struct probe_iommu_args {
> > static int probe_iommu_group(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > {
> > struct probe_iommu_args *args = data;
> > + bool need_lock;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - device_lock(dev);
> > + /* Probing the iommu itself is always done under the device_lock */
> > + need_lock = !args->iommu || args->iommu->hwdev != dev;
> > +
>
> is !args->iommu a valid case?
Hmm, not any more, it used to happen in an earlier version
> btw probably a dumb question. Why do we continue to probe the
> iommu device itself instead of skipping it? The group is a concept
> for devices which require DMA protection from iommu instead of
> for the iommu device itself...
Yeah, that is how I originally did it, but since the locking appeared
here I thought it would be safer to just continue to invoke probe as
we have always done. I don't know for sure that there isn't some
driver that relies on this for some reason.
eg it might change the group layouts or something.
Thanks,
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-09 12:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-08 17:27 [PATCH 0/3] Fix device_lock deadlock on two probe() paths Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-08 17:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] iommu: Provide iommu_probe_device_locked() Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-09 3:55 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-08-09 9:14 ` Joerg Roedel
2023-08-08 17:27 ` [PATCH 2/3] iommu: Pass in the iommu_device to probe for in bus_iommu_probe() Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-09 3:57 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-08-08 17:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] iommu: Do not attempt to re-lock the iommu device when probing Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-09 4:01 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-08-09 12:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2023-08-09 13:38 ` Marek Szyprowski
2023-08-09 14:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-08 20:18 ` [PATCH 0/3] Fix device_lock deadlock on two probe() paths Mark Brown
2023-08-08 22:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-09 6:37 ` Chen-Yu Tsai
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=ZNODeRzC+Rtkta1U@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=wenst@chromium.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox