From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/iova: don't disable preempt around this_cpu_ptr()
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:22:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170628092205.GB30388@8bytes.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170627161648.30302-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Commit 583248e6620a ("iommu/iova: Disable preemption around use of
> this_cpu_ptr()") disables preemption while accessing a per-CPU variable.
> This does keep lockdep quiet. However I don't see the point why it is
> bad if we get migrated after its access to another CPU.
> __iova_rcache_insert() and __iova_rcache_get() immediately locks the
> variable after obtaining it - before accessing its members.
> _If_ we get migrated away after retrieving the address of cpu_rcache
> before taking the lock then the *other* task on the same CPU will
> retrieve the same address of cpu_rcache and will spin on the lock.
>
> alloc_iova_fast() disables preemption while invoking
> free_cpu_cached_iovas() on each CPU. The function itself uses
> per_cpu_ptr() which does not trigger a warning (like this_cpu_ptr()
> does). It _could_ make sense to use get_online_cpus() instead but the we
> have a hotplug notifier for CPU down (and none for up) so we are good.
Does that really matter? The spin_lock disables irqs and thus avoids
preemption too. We also can't get rid of the irqsave lock here because
these locks are taken in the dma-api path which is used from interrupt
context.
Joerg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-28 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-27 16:16 [PATCH 1/3] rbtree: include rcu.h because we use it Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-06-27 16:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] iommu/iova: don't disable preempt around this_cpu_ptr() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-06-28 9:22 ` Joerg Roedel [this message]
2017-06-28 9:31 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-06-28 10:26 ` Joerg Roedel
2017-06-27 16:16 ` [PATCH 3/3] iommu/vt-d: don't disable preemption while accessing deferred_flush() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=20170628092205.GB30388@8bytes.org \
--to=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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