Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1431415 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-26 13:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-27 13:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu: Disable preemption around use of this_cpu_ptr() Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info> - 2016-06-26 13:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu: Disable preemption around use of this_cpu_ptr() Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> - 2016-06-27 13:20 +0200
| From | Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-26 13:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iommu: Disable preemption around use of this_cpu_ptr() |
| Message-ID | <rOfXg-1Sr-225@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On 15.06.2016 14:25, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 12:10:08PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> Between acquiring the this_cpu_ptr() and using it, ideally we don't want >> to be preempted and work on another CPU's private data. this_cpu_ptr() >> checks whether or not preemption is disable, and get_cpu_ptr() provides >> a convenient wrapper for operating on the cpu ptr inside a preemption >> disabled critical section (which currently is provided by the >> spinlock). Indeed if we disable preemption around this_cpu_ptr, >> we do not need the CPU local spinlock - so long as take care that no other >> CPU is running that code as do perform the cross-CPU cache flushing and >> teardown, but that is a subject for another patch. > […] >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96293 > […] >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iova.c b/drivers/iommu/iova.c >> index ba764a0835d3..e23001bfcfee 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iommu/iova.c >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/iova.c >> @@ -420,8 +420,10 @@ retry: >> >> /* Try replenishing IOVAs by flushing rcache. */ >> flushed_rcache = true; >> + preempt_disable(); >> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) >> free_cpu_cached_iovas(cpu, iovad); >> + preempt_enable(); > > Why do you need to disable preemption here? The free_cpu_cached_iovas > function does not need to stay on the same cpu as it iterates over the > rcaches for all cpus anyway. Joerg, what's the status here? This made it on my 4.7 regressions report, as the patches from this thread are supposed to fix a regression; see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.general/143504/focus=153154 for details. Please let me know if if fixes went to mainline already; I did a quick check and could see any. Sincerely, your regression tracker for Linux 4.7 (http://bit.ly/28JRmJo) Thorsten
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-27 13:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rOCK5-7WH-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1431415 |
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:54:19PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Joerg, what's the status here? This made it on my 4.7 regressions > report, as the patches from this thread are supposed to fix a > regression; see > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.general/143504/focus=153154 > for details. > > Please let me know if if fixes went to mainline already; I did a quick > check and could see any. Okay, queued the fix, should be upstream for -rc6. > Sincerely, your regression tracker for Linux 4.7 (http://bit.ly/28JRmJo) > Thorsten Awesome, glad to see you picking this up :) Cheers, Joerg
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web