* ops_sem and tpm_mutex
@ 2016-07-05 11:06 Jarkko Sakkinen
[not found] ` <20160705110647.GA28275-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2016-07-05 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f
Hi
I started to looking at ops_sem and tpm_mutex because it would be nicer
to have one lock. When we do something that uses ops_sem we do this:
1. read lock for ops_sem
2. lock tpm_mutex
This is the basic pattern. Basically we always loose the benefit of
RW-lock because in every use case we also lock a mutex.
And the mutex of course cannot be taken off because we want to mutually
exclude the TPM access.
What I was thinking that maybe we could have kref for ops instead
of lock. In the places where we now use read lock you could use
kref_get_unless_zero() to avoid races with tpm_chip_unregister().
/Jarkko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread[parent not found: <20160705110647.GA28275-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: ops_sem and tpm_mutex [not found] ` <20160705110647.GA28275-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> @ 2016-07-05 16:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Jason Gunthorpe @ 2016-07-05 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jarkko Sakkinen; +Cc: tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:06:47PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > This is the basic pattern. Basically we always loose the benefit of > RW-lock because in every use case we also lock a mutex. The only purpose of the rw lock is protect against unregister, and that is the benifit it provides. > What I was thinking that maybe we could have kref for ops instead > of lock. In the places where we now use read lock you could use > kref_get_unless_zero() to avoid races with tpm_chip_unregister(). No, it needs to be a lock, the unregister path must block and sleep, and a kref cannot do that alone, by the time you build in the locking you've made something more expensive than a rwlock. The performance alternative is to use srcu for the rwlock, but since we don't really have a performance concern in TPM I would rather not see such complexity. Another alternative would be to merge the rw-lock and mutex together (ie hold mutex before touching ops at all), however this semantically changes things by linking the lifetime and concurrancy models together. I belive I looked at that before doing the rwsem and decided it was a huge amount of tricky work. Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-05 16:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-05 11:06 ops_sem and tpm_mutex Jarkko Sakkinen
[not found] ` <20160705110647.GA28275-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2016-07-05 16:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
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).