[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3400101.E3rphEBHnx@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:21:19 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] IB/hns: Replace counting semaphore event_sem with wait_event
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 6:29:45 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
> On 25 October 2016 at 17:58, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 5:31:57 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
> >> static int __hns_roce_cmd_mbox_wait(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev, u64 in_param,
> >> u64 out_param, unsigned long in_modifier,
> >> @@ -198,11 +218,12 @@ static int __hns_roce_cmd_mbox_wait(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev, u64 in_param,
> >> struct hns_roce_cmdq *cmd = &hr_dev->cmd;
> >> struct device *dev = &hr_dev->pdev->dev;
> >> struct hns_roce_cmd_context *context;
> >> - int ret = 0;
> >> + int orig_free_head, ret = 0;
> >> +
> >> + wait_event(cmd->wq, (orig_free_head = atomic_free_node(cmd, -1)) != -1);
> >>
> >> spin_lock(&cmd->context_lock);
> >> - WARN_ON(cmd->free_head < 0);
> >> - context = &cmd->context[cmd->free_head];
> >> + context = &cmd->context[orig_free_head];
> >> context->token += cmd->token_mask + 1;
> >> cmd->free_head = context->next;
> >> spin_unlock(&cmd->context_lock);
> >>
> >
> > You get the lock in atomic_free_node() and then again right after that.
> > Why not combine the two and only take the lock inside of that
> > function that returns a context?
>
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
> I couldn't figure out a way to wait for a node to be free followed by
> acquiring a lock
> in an atomic fashion. If the lock is acquired after the wait_event,
> there could be race
> between the wait_event and acquiring the lock. If the lock is acquired
> before the
> wait_event, the process may goto sleep with the lock held which is not desired.
> Could you suggest me of some way to circumvent this?
Something like
static struct hns_roce_cmd_context *hns_roce_try_get_context(struct hns_roce_cmdq *cmd)
{
struct hns_roce_cmd_context *context = NULL;
spin_lock(&cmd->context_lock);
if (cmd->free_head < 0)
goto out;
context = &cmd->context[cmd->free_head];
... /* update free_head */
out:
spin_unlock(&cmd->context_lock);
return context;
}
...
static struct hns_roce_cmd_context *hns_roce_get_context(struct hns_roce_cmdq *cmd)
{
struct hns_roce_cmd_context *context;
wait_event(cmd->wq, (context = hns_roce_try_get_context(cmd)));
return context;
}
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists