lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2] efi/unaccepted: Fix soft lockups caused by parallel memory acceptance
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 11:44, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 23:39, Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 06:55:41PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 07:31:22PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > v2:
> > > > > - Fix deadlock (Vlastimil);
> > > > > - Fix comments (Vlastimil);
> > > > > - s/cond_resched()/cpu_relax()/ -- cond_resched() cannot be called
> > > > > from atomic context;
> > > >
> > > > Isn't there an implicit cpu_relax() while we're spinning? Does this
> > > > really accomplish anything?
> > >
> > > You are right. It is useless. I will drop it in v3.
> > >
> >
> > I can drop that bit when applying the patch.
> >
> > One question I have is whether the sequence
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
> > ...
> > spin_unlock(&unaccepted_memory_lock);
> > arch_accept_memory(phys_start, phys_end);
> > spin_lock(&unaccepted_memory_lock);
> > ...
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
> >
> > is considered sound and is supported by all architectures?
>
> I am not an locking expert and only tested it on x86. But what potential
> issue do you see?
>

Not sure. It just looks slightly out of place, and I am curious
whether all architectures tolerate this asymmetric use.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-17 11:58    [W:0.078 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site