From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] evtchn: convert domain event lock to an r/w one
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:32:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6e34fd25-14a2-f655-b019-aca94ce086c8@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <074be931-54b0-1b0f-72d8-5bd577884814@xen.org>
On 09.12.2020 12:54, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 23/11/2020 13:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ int evtchn_close(struct domain *d1, int
>> long rc = 0;
>>
>> again:
>> - spin_lock(&d1->event_lock);
>> + write_lock(&d1->event_lock);
>>
>> if ( !port_is_valid(d1, port1) )
>> {
>> @@ -690,13 +690,11 @@ int evtchn_close(struct domain *d1, int
>> BUG();
>>
>> if ( d1 < d2 )
>> - {
>> - spin_lock(&d2->event_lock);
>> - }
>> + read_lock(&d2->event_lock);
>
> This change made me realized that I don't quite understand how the
> rwlock is meant to work for event_lock. I was actually expecting this to
> be a write_lock() given there are state changed in the d2 events.
Well, the protection needs to be against racing changes, i.e.
parallel invocations of this same function, or evtchn_close().
It is debatable whether evtchn_status() and
domain_dump_evtchn_info() would better also be locked out
(other read_lock() uses aren't applicable to interdomain
channels).
> Could you outline how a developper can find out whether he/she should
> use read_lock or write_lock?
I could try to, but it would again be a port type dependent
model, just like for the per-channel locks. So I'd like it to
be clarified first whether you aren't instead indirectly
asking for these to become write_lock().
>> --- a/xen/common/rwlock.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/rwlock.c
>> @@ -102,6 +102,14 @@ void queue_write_lock_slowpath(rwlock_t
>> spin_unlock(&lock->lock);
>> }
>>
>> +void _rw_barrier(rwlock_t *lock)
>> +{
>> + check_barrier(&lock->lock.debug);
>> + smp_mb();
>> + while ( _rw_is_locked(lock) )
>> + arch_lock_relax();
>> + smp_mb();
>> +}
>
> As I pointed out when this implementation was first proposed (see [1]),
> there is a risk that the loop will never exit.
The [1] reference was missing, but I recall you saying so.
> I think the following implementation would be better (although it is ugly):
>
> write_lock();
> /* do nothing */
> write_unlock();
>
> This will act as a barrier between lock held before and after the call.
Right, and back then I indicated agreement. When getting to
actually carry out the change, I realized though that then the less
restrictive check_barrier() can't be used anymore (or to be precise,
it could be used, but the stronger check_lock() would subsequently
still come into play). This isn't a problem here, but would be for
any IRQ-safe r/w lock that the barrier may want to be used on down
the road.
Thinking about it, a read_lock() / read_unlock() pair would suffice
though. But this would then still have check_lock() involved.
Given all of this, maybe it's better not to introduce the function
at all and instead open-code the read_lock() / read_unlock() pair at
the use site.
> As an aside, I think the introduction of rw_barrier() deserve to be a in
> separate patch to help the review.
I'm aware there are differing views on this - to me, putting this in
a separate patch would be introduction of dead code. But as per
above maybe the function now won't get introduced anymore anyway.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-11 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-23 13:26 [PATCH v3 0/5] evtchn: (not so) recent XSAs follow-on Jan Beulich
2020-11-23 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] evtchn: drop acquiring of per-channel lock from send_guest_{global,vcpu}_virq() Jan Beulich
2020-12-02 19:03 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-03 9:46 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-09 9:53 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-09 14:24 ` Jan Beulich
2020-11-23 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] evtchn: avoid access tearing for ->virq_to_evtchn[] accesses Jan Beulich
2020-12-02 21:14 ` Julien Grall
2020-11-23 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] evtchn: convert vIRQ lock to an r/w one Jan Beulich
2020-12-09 11:16 ` Julien Grall
2020-11-23 13:29 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] evtchn: convert domain event " Jan Beulich
2020-12-09 11:54 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-11 10:32 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2020-12-11 10:57 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-14 9:40 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-21 17:45 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-22 9:46 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-23 11:22 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-23 12:57 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-23 13:19 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-23 13:36 ` Jan Beulich
2020-11-23 13:30 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] evtchn: don't call Xen consumer callback with per-channel lock held Jan Beulich
2020-11-30 10:39 ` Isaila Alexandru
2020-12-02 21:10 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-03 10:09 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-03 14:40 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2020-12-04 11:28 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-04 11:48 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-04 11:51 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-04 12:01 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-04 15:09 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-07 8:02 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-07 17:22 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-04 15:21 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2020-12-04 15:29 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-04 19:15 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2020-12-04 19:22 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-04 21:23 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2020-12-07 15:28 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-07 17:30 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-07 17:35 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2020-12-23 13:12 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-23 13:33 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-23 13:41 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-23 14:44 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-23 14:56 ` Jan Beulich
2020-12-23 15:08 ` Julien Grall
2020-12-23 15:15 ` Tamas K Lengyel
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=6e34fd25-14a2-f655-b019-aca94ce086c8@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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).