[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v13 01/14] vpci: use per-domain PCI lock to protect vpci structure


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebrand@xxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:44:58 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@xxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:45:10 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 13.02.2024 09:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 04:33:05PM -0500, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> @@ -462,7 +462,8 @@ struct domain
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PCI
>>      struct list_head pdev_list;
>>      /*
>> -     * pci_lock protects access to pdev_list.
>> +     * pci_lock protects access to pdev_list. pci_lock also protects 
>> pdev->vpci
>> +     * structure from being removed.
>>       *
>>       * Any user *reading* from pdev_list, or from devices stored in 
>> pdev_list,
>>       * should hold either pcidevs_lock() or pci_lock in read mode. 
>> Optionally,
>> @@ -628,6 +629,18 @@ struct domain
>>      unsigned int cdf;
>>  };
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * Check for use in ASSERTs to ensure that:
>> + *   1. we can *read* d->pdev_list
>> + *   2. pdevs (belonging to this domain) do not go away
>> + *   3. pdevs (belonging to this domain) do not get assigned to other 
>> domains
> 
> I think you can just state that this check ensures there will be no
> changes to the entries in d->pdev_list, but not the contents of each
> entry.  No changes to d->pdev_list already ensures not devices can be
> deassigned or removed from the system, and obviously makes the list
> safe to iterate against.
> 
> I would also drop the explicitly mention this is intended for ASSERT
> usage: there's nothing specific in the code that prevents it from
> being used in other places (albeit I think that's unlikely).

But pcidevs_locked(), resolving to spin_is_locked(), isn't reliable. The
assertion usage is best-effort only, without a guarantee that all wrong
uses would be caught.

>> + * This check is not suitable for protecting other state or critical 
>> regions.
>> + */
>> +#define pdev_list_is_read_locked(d) ({                           \
> 
> I would be tempted to drop at least the '_read_' part from the name,
> the name is getting a bit too long for my taste.

While I agree with the long-ish aspect, I'm afraid the "read" part is
crucial. As a result I see no room for shortening.

>> +        struct domain *d_ = (d);                                 \
> 
> Why do you need this local domain variable?  Can't you use the d
> parameter directly?

It would be evaluated then somewhere between 0 and 2 times.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.