From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@nvidia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: <kevin.tian@intel.com>, <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
<iommu@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<joro@8bytes.org>, <will@kernel.org>, <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rc v2 2/2] iommufd/fault: Use a separate spinlock to protect fault->deliver list
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:07:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z4mtOOqabb0tAzxD@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250116203406.GY5556@nvidia.com>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 04:34:06PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:56:00PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > @@ -102,17 +102,18 @@ static void iommufd_auto_response_faults(struct iommufd_hw_pagetable *hwpt,
> > struct iommufd_attach_handle *handle)
> > {
> > struct iommufd_fault *fault = hwpt->fault;
> > - struct iopf_group *group, *next;
> > + struct iopf_group *group;
> > unsigned long index;
> >
> > if (!fault)
> > return;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&fault->mutex);
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(group, next, &fault->deliver, node) {
> > - if (group->attach_handle != &handle->handle)
> > + while ((group = iommufd_fault_deliver_fetch(fault))) {
> > + if (group->attach_handle != &handle->handle) {
> > + iommufd_fault_deliver_restore(fault, group);
> > continue;
> > - list_del(&group->node);
> > + }
>
> I think this does not work, if we take the 'if attach_handle' leg then
> restore will put the same entry back into the front and the next fetch
> will pick it up and then it infinite loops without forward progress.
!! Needed more careful thinking. All these continues shouldn't be
handled like those breaks.
> To make this algorithm work I suggest to do a
> list_for_each_entry_safe() under the spinlock and list_move each
> matching entry to a temporary list on the stack.
Ack. I added a free_list for that.
> Then you can drop the spinlock and run over the temporary list doing this:
>
> > @@ -221,8 +222,7 @@ void iommufd_fault_destroy(struct iommufd_object *obj)
> > * accessing this pointer. Therefore, acquiring the mutex here
> > * is unnecessary.
> > */
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(group, next, &fault->deliver, node) {
> > - list_del(&group->node);
>
> The comment above says there is no concurrency so no locking is
> necessary. I'd leave it alone and just leat it be the efficient
> list_for_each_entry_safe()
Ack. Will send a v3.
Thanks
Nicolin
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-17 1:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-15 6:55 [PATCH rc v2 0/2] iommufd/fault: Two bug fixes prior to vEVENTQ Nicolin Chen
2025-01-15 6:55 ` [PATCH rc v2 1/2] iommufd/fault: Destroy response and mutex in iommufd_fault_destroy() Nicolin Chen
2025-01-16 20:42 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-01-15 6:56 ` [PATCH rc v2 2/2] iommufd/fault: Use a separate spinlock to protect fault->deliver list Nicolin Chen
2025-01-16 20:34 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-01-17 1:07 ` Nicolin Chen [this message]
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=Z4mtOOqabb0tAzxD@nvidia.com \
--to=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--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