From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
marcelo.cerri@canonical.com, tim.gardner@canonical.com,
khalid.elmously@canonical.com, philip.cox@canonical.com,
aarcange@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv14 5/9] efi: Add unaccepted memory support
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 00:54:10 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231013215410.3os6d2ya7v5yu7vd@box.shutemov.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231013172728.66pm7os3fp7laxwr@box>
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 08:27:28PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I will test the idea with larger unit_size to see how it behaves.
It indeed uncovered an issue. We need to record ranges on accepting_list
in unit_size granularity. Otherwise, we fail to stop parallel accept
requests to the same unit_size block if they don't overlap on physical
addresses.
Updated patch:
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
index 853f7dc3c21d..8af0306c8e5c 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/unaccepted_memory.c
@@ -5,9 +5,17 @@
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <asm/unaccepted_memory.h>
-/* Protects unaccepted memory bitmap */
+/* Protects unaccepted memory bitmap and accepting_list */
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(unaccepted_memory_lock);
+struct accept_range {
+ struct list_head list;
+ unsigned long start;
+ unsigned long end;
+};
+
+static LIST_HEAD(accepting_list);
+
/*
* accept_memory() -- Consult bitmap and accept the memory if needed.
*
@@ -24,6 +32,7 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
{
struct efi_unaccepted_memory *unaccepted;
unsigned long range_start, range_end;
+ struct accept_range range, *entry;
unsigned long flags;
u64 unit_size;
@@ -78,20 +87,58 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
if (end > unaccepted->size * unit_size * BITS_PER_BYTE)
end = unaccepted->size * unit_size * BITS_PER_BYTE;
- range_start = start / unit_size;
-
+ range.start = start / unit_size;
+ range.end = DIV_ROUND_UP(end, unit_size);
+retry:
spin_lock_irqsave(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
+
+ /*
+ * Check if anybody works on accepting the same range of the memory.
+ *
+ * The check with unit_size granularity. It is crucial to catch all
+ * accept requests to the same unit_size block, even if they don't
+ * overlap on physical address level.
+ */
+ list_for_each_entry(entry, &accepting_list, list) {
+ if (entry->end < range.start)
+ continue;
+ if (entry->start >= range.end)
+ continue;
+
+ /*
+ * Somebody else accepting the range. Or at least part of it.
+ *
+ * Drop the lock and retry until it is complete.
+ */
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
+ cond_resched();
+ goto retry;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Register that the range is about to be accepted.
+ * Make sure nobody else will accept it.
+ */
+ list_add(&range.list, &accepting_list);
+
+ range_start = range.start;
for_each_set_bitrange_from(range_start, range_end, unaccepted->bitmap,
- DIV_ROUND_UP(end, unit_size)) {
+ range.end) {
unsigned long phys_start, phys_end;
unsigned long len = range_end - range_start;
phys_start = range_start * unit_size + unaccepted->phys_base;
phys_end = range_end * unit_size + unaccepted->phys_base;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
+
arch_accept_memory(phys_start, phys_end);
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
bitmap_clear(unaccepted->bitmap, range_start, len);
}
+
+ list_del(&range.list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
}
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-13 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-06 14:26 [PATCHv14 0/9] mm, x86/cc, efi: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 1/9] mm: Add " Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 2/9] efi/x86: Get full memory map in allocate_e820() Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 3/9] efi/libstub: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 4/9] x86/boot/compressed: Handle " Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 5/9] efi: Add unaccepted memory support Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-07-03 13:25 ` Mel Gorman
2023-07-04 14:37 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-07-12 9:18 ` Mel Gorman
2023-10-10 21:05 ` Michael Roth
2023-10-13 12:33 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-10-13 16:22 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-10-13 16:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
2023-10-13 17:27 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-10-13 21:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2023-10-13 17:45 ` Tom Lendacky
2023-10-13 19:53 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 6/9] efi/unaccepted: Avoid load_unaligned_zeropad() stepping into unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 7/9] x86/tdx: Make _tdx_hypercall() and __tdx_module_call() available in boot stub Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 8/9] x86/tdx: Refactor try_accept_one() Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 14:26 ` [PATCHv14 9/9] x86/tdx: Add unaccepted memory support Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-06-06 16:16 ` [PATCHv14 0/9] mm, x86/cc, efi: Implement support for unaccepted memory Borislav Petkov
2023-06-06 16:25 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-06-06 18:14 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
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=20231013215410.3os6d2ya7v5yu7vd@box.shutemov.name \
--to=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dfaggioli@suse.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=khalid.elmously@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.cerri@canonical.com \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=philip.cox@canonical.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tim.gardner@canonical.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=x86@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).