[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210922124034.GJ327412@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:40:34 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"lkml@...ux.net" <lkml@...ux.net>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"lushenming@...wei.com" <lushenming@...wei.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com" <yi.l.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Tian, Jun J" <jun.j.tian@...el.com>, "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"david@...son.dropbear.id.au" <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/20] iommu/iommufd: Add /dev/iommu core
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:51:03AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:42 PM
> >
> > - Delete the iommufd_ctx->lock. Use RCU to protect load, erase/alloc does
> > not need locking (order it properly too, it is in the wrong order), and
> > don't check for duplicate devices or dev_cookie duplication, that
> > is user error and is harmless to the kernel.
> >
>
> I'm confused here. yes it's user error, but we check so many user errors
> and then return -EINVAL, -EBUSY, etc. Why is this one special?
Because it is expensive to calculate and forces a complicated locking
scheme into the kernel. Without this check you don't need the locking
that spans so much code, and simple RCU becomes acceptable.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists