From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Lv Zheng <zetalog@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 23:41:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2101425.aQhWfuyaHJ@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1660120.KNfsmTX9Wg@aspire.rjw.lan>
On Friday, May 12, 2017 11:03:52 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 09, 2017 01:57:41 PM Lv Zheng wrote:
> > For all frequent late stage acpi_get_table() clone invocations, we should
> > only change them altogether, otherwise, excessive acpi_put_table() could
> > unexpectedly unmap the table used by the other users. Thus the current plan
> > is to change all acpi_get_table() clones together or to change none of
> > them. However in practical, this is not convenient as this can prevent
> > kernel developers' efforts of improving the late stage code quality before
> > waiting for the ACPICA upstream to improve first.
> >
> > This patch adds 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. Lv Zheng.
> >
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
> > include/acpi/actbl.h | 9 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > index 7abe665..04beafc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > @@ -416,9 +416,13 @@ acpi_tb_get_table(struct acpi_table_desc *table_desc,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - table_desc->validation_count++;
> > - if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> > - table_desc->validation_count--;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count < ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS) {
> > + table_desc->validation_count++;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count >= ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS) {
> > + ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > + "Table %p, Validation count overflows\n",
> > + table_desc));
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > *out_table = table_desc->pointer;
> > @@ -445,13 +449,15 @@ void acpi_tb_put_table(struct acpi_table_desc *table_desc)
> >
> > ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE(acpi_tb_put_table);
> >
> > - if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> > - ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > - "Table %p, Validation count is zero before decrement\n",
> > - table_desc));
> > - return_VOID;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count < ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS) {
> > + table_desc->validation_count--;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count >= ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS) {
>
> Is this going to ever trigger?
>
> We've already verified that validation_count is not 0 and that it is less than
> ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS and we have decremented it, so how can it be
> greater than or equal to ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS here?
Wrong question, sorry.
I think that the check is in case validation_count was 0 before the decrementation,
right?
So then, I'd still check if validation_count == 0 and if so, set it to
ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS.
Next, if validation_count => ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS, I'd print the warning
message and return.
Then, the decrementation would not underflow, so it would be safe to do it.
Wouldn't that be somewhat easier to follow?
> > + ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > + "Table %p, Validation count underflows\n",
> > + table_desc));
> > + return_VOID;
> > + }
> > }
> > - table_desc->validation_count--;
> >
> > if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> >
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-12 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-27 8:22 [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Lv Zheng
2017-04-27 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-04-27 22:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-27 22:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-28 1:24 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28 3:57 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28 5:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 5:28 ` [PATCH v3 " Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 5:30 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 20:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-04 7:18 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-04 15:45 ` Dan Williams
2017-05-05 0:53 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-05 20:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-09 1:58 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28 5:30 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] ACPI: sysfs: Fix acpi_get_table() leak Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 5:30 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Lv Zheng
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-05-12 21:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-12 21:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2017-05-15 6:32 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] ACPI: sysfs: Fix acpi_get_table() leak Lv Zheng
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-06-12 13:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-06-07 4:54 ` [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-06-07 6:41 ` Dan Williams
2017-06-07 21:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-06-07 21:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-06-08 2:24 ` Zheng, Lv
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2101425.aQhWfuyaHJ@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=zetalog@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).