Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1676493
| From | Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/iova: don't disable preempt around this_cpu_ptr() |
| Date | 2017-06-28 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tXhC3-53u-37@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tX1nz-2Ys-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tX1nA-2Ys-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <tXhsm-50j-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2017-06-28 11:22:05 [+0200], Joerg Roedel wrote:
> 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.
It really does. The spin_lock() does disable preemption but this is not
the problem. The thing is that the preempt_disable() is superfluous and
it hurts Preempt-RT (and this is how I noticed it). Also the
get_cpu_ptr() is not requited and was only added to keep lockdep quiet
(according to the history).
Everything else here can stay as-is, I am just asking for the removal of
the redundant preempt_disable() where it is not required.
> Joerg
Sebastian
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 2/3] iommu/iova: don't disable preempt around this_cpu_ptr() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-06-27 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/iova: don't disable preempt around this_cpu_ptr() Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> - 2017-06-28 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/iova: don't disable preempt around this_cpu_ptr() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-06-28 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/iova: don't disable preempt around this_cpu_ptr() Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> - 2017-06-28 12:30 +0200
csiph-web