Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1660247 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently

Started by"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
First post2017-06-07 23:20 +0200
Last post2017-06-08 04:30 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 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.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late  stage acpi_get_table() independently "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-06-07 23:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late  stage acpi_get_table() independently Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-06-07 23:30 +0200
      RE: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance  late stage acpi_get_table() independently "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com> - 2017-06-08 04:30 +0200

#1660247 — Re: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date2017-06-07 23:20 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently
Message-ID<tPQwX-3ya-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
>> Considering this case:
>> 1. A program opens a sysfs table file 65535 times, it can increase
>>    validation_count and first increment cause the table to be mapped:
>>     validation_count = 65535
>> 2. AML execution causes "Load" to be executed on the same table, this time
>>    it cannot increase validation_count, so validation_count remains:
>>     validation_count = 65535
>> 3. The program closes sysfs table file 65535 times, it can decrease
>>    validation_count and the last decrement cause the table to be unmapped:
>>     validation_count = 0
>> 4. AML code still accessing the loaded table, kernel crash can be observed.
>>
>> This is because orginally ACPICA doesn't support unmapping tables during
>> OS late stage. So the current code only allows unmapping tables during OS
>> early stage, and for late stage, no acpi_put_table() clones should be
>> invoked, especially cases that can trigger frequent invocations of
>> acpi_get_table()/acpi_put_table() are forbidden:
>> 1. sysfs table accesses
>> 2. dynamic Load/Unload opcode executions
>> 3. acpi_load_table()
>> 4. etc.
>> Such frequent acpi_put_table() balance changes have to be done altogether.
>>
>> This philosophy is not convenient for Linux driver writers. Since the API
>> is just there, developers will start to use acpi_put_table() during late
>> stage. So we need to consider a better mechanism to allow them to safely
>> invoke acpi_put_table().
>>
>> This patch provides such a mechanism by adding a validation_count
>> threashold. When it is reached, the validation_count can no longer be
>> incremented/decremented to invalidate the table descriptor (means
>> preventing table unmappings) so that acpi_put_table() balance changes can be
>> done independently to each others.
>>
>> Note: code added in acpi_tb_put_table() is actually a no-op but changes the
>> warning message into a warning once message. Lv Zheng.
>>
>
> This still seems to be unnecessary gymnastics to keep the validation
> count around and make it work for random drivers.

Well, I'm not sure I agree here.

If we can make it work at one point, it should not be too hard to
maintain that status.

Thanks,
Rafael

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1660248

FromDan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date2017-06-07 23:30 +0200
Message-ID<tPQGB-3BE-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1660247
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Considering this case:
>>> 1. A program opens a sysfs table file 65535 times, it can increase
>>>    validation_count and first increment cause the table to be mapped:
>>>     validation_count = 65535
>>> 2. AML execution causes "Load" to be executed on the same table, this time
>>>    it cannot increase validation_count, so validation_count remains:
>>>     validation_count = 65535
>>> 3. The program closes sysfs table file 65535 times, it can decrease
>>>    validation_count and the last decrement cause the table to be unmapped:
>>>     validation_count = 0
>>> 4. AML code still accessing the loaded table, kernel crash can be observed.
>>>
>>> This is because orginally ACPICA doesn't support unmapping tables during
>>> OS late stage. So the current code only allows unmapping tables during OS
>>> early stage, and for late stage, no acpi_put_table() clones should be
>>> invoked, especially cases that can trigger frequent invocations of
>>> acpi_get_table()/acpi_put_table() are forbidden:
>>> 1. sysfs table accesses
>>> 2. dynamic Load/Unload opcode executions
>>> 3. acpi_load_table()
>>> 4. etc.
>>> Such frequent acpi_put_table() balance changes have to be done altogether.
>>>
>>> This philosophy is not convenient for Linux driver writers. Since the API
>>> is just there, developers will start to use acpi_put_table() during late
>>> stage. So we need to consider a better mechanism to allow them to safely
>>> invoke acpi_put_table().
>>>
>>> This patch provides such a mechanism by adding a validation_count
>>> threashold. When it is reached, the validation_count can no longer be
>>> incremented/decremented to invalidate the table descriptor (means
>>> preventing table unmappings) so that acpi_put_table() balance changes can be
>>> done independently to each others.
>>>
>>> Note: code added in acpi_tb_put_table() is actually a no-op but changes the
>>> warning message into a warning once message. Lv Zheng.
>>>
>>
>> This still seems to be unnecessary gymnastics to keep the validation
>> count around and make it work for random drivers.
>
> Well, I'm not sure I agree here.
>
> If we can make it work at one point, it should not be too hard to
> maintain that status.
>

I agree with that, my concern was with driver writers needing to be
worried about when it is safe to call acpi_put_table(). This reference
count behaves differently than other reference counts like kobjects.
The difference is not necessarily bad, but hopefully it can be
contained within the acpi core.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1660666 — RE: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently

From"Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com>
Date2017-06-08 04:30 +0200
SubjectRE: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently
Message-ID<tPVmV-6Cm-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1660248
Hi, Dan

> From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.williams@intel.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table()
> independently
> 
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com> wrote:
> >>> Considering this case:
> >>> 1. A program opens a sysfs table file 65535 times, it can increase
> >>>    validation_count and first increment cause the table to be mapped:
> >>>     validation_count = 65535
> >>> 2. AML execution causes "Load" to be executed on the same table, this time
> >>>    it cannot increase validation_count, so validation_count remains:
> >>>     validation_count = 65535
> >>> 3. The program closes sysfs table file 65535 times, it can decrease
> >>>    validation_count and the last decrement cause the table to be unmapped:
> >>>     validation_count = 0
> >>> 4. AML code still accessing the loaded table, kernel crash can be observed.
> >>>
> >>> This is because orginally ACPICA doesn't support unmapping tables during
> >>> OS late stage. So the current code only allows unmapping tables during OS
> >>> early stage, and for late stage, no acpi_put_table() clones should be
> >>> invoked, especially cases that can trigger frequent invocations of
> >>> acpi_get_table()/acpi_put_table() are forbidden:
> >>> 1. sysfs table accesses
> >>> 2. dynamic Load/Unload opcode executions
> >>> 3. acpi_load_table()
> >>> 4. etc.
> >>> Such frequent acpi_put_table() balance changes have to be done altogether.
> >>>
> >>> This philosophy is not convenient for Linux driver writers. Since the API
> >>> is just there, developers will start to use acpi_put_table() during late
> >>> stage. So we need to consider a better mechanism to allow them to safely
> >>> invoke acpi_put_table().
> >>>
> >>> This patch provides such a mechanism by adding a validation_count
> >>> threashold. When it is reached, the validation_count can no longer be
> >>> incremented/decremented to invalidate the table descriptor (means
> >>> preventing table unmappings) so that acpi_put_table() balance changes can be
> >>> done independently to each others.
> >>>
> >>> Note: code added in acpi_tb_put_table() is actually a no-op but changes the
> >>> warning message into a warning once message. Lv Zheng.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This still seems to be unnecessary gymnastics to keep the validation
> >> count around and make it work for random drivers.
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure I agree here.
> >
> > If we can make it work at one point, it should not be too hard to
> > maintain that status.
> >
> 
> I agree with that, my concern was with driver writers needing to be
> worried about when it is safe to call acpi_put_table(). This reference
> count behaves differently than other reference counts like kobjects.

I don't think they behave differently.

"kref" needn't consider unbalanced "get/put".
Because when the drivers(users) are deploying "kref",
they are responsible for ensuring balanced "get/put".
"kref" needn't take too much care about "overflow/underflow"
as if all users ensure balanced "get/put",
"overflow/underflow" is not possible.
Occurrence of "overflow/underflow" means bugs.
And can be further captured as "panic".

If "kref" considers to "warn_once" overflow/underflow users,
the logic in this commit can also be introduced to kref.
However it's useless as all users have ensured balanced "get/put".
Putting useless check than panic on hot path could be a waste.

> The difference is not necessarily bad, but hopefully it can be
> contained within the acpi core.

The old warning logic for table desc is just derived from utdelete.c.
Which reduces communication cost when the mechanism is upstreamed.

ACPICA table "validation_count" is deployed on top of old design.
Where "table unmap" is forbidden for late stage.
Thus there is no users ensuring balanced "get/put".
Under this circumstances, when we start to deploy balanced "get/put",
we need to consider all users as a whole.
You cannot say current unbalanced "get/put" users have bugs.
They are there just because of historical reasons.

Fortunately after applying this patch,
drivers should be able to have a better environment to use the new APIs.

Cheers,
Lv

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web