[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:32:00 +0000
From: "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "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>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"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 02/20] vfio: Add device class for /dev/vfio/devices
Hi Jason,
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 9:26 PM
>
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 09:53:29AM +0000, Liu, Yi L wrote:
>
> > > vfio_uninit_group_dev(&mdev_state->vdev);
> > > kfree(mdev_state->pages);
> > > kfree(mdev_state->vconfig);
> > > kfree(mdev_state);
> > >
> > > pages/vconfig would logically be in a release function
> >
> > I see. So the criteria is: the pointer fields pointing to a memory buffer
> > allocated by the device driver should be logically be free in a release
> > function. right?
>
> Often yes, that is usually a good idea
>
> >I can see there are such fields in struct vfio_pci_core_device
> > and mdev_state (both mbochs and mdpy). So we may go with your option
> #2.
> > Is it? otherwise, needs to add release callback for all the related drivers.
>
> Yes, that is the approx trade off
>
> > > On the other hand ccw needs to rcu free the vfio_device, so that would
> > > have to be global overhead with this api design.
> >
> > not quite get. why ccw is special here? could you elaborate?
>
> I added a rcu usage to it in order to fix a race
>
> +static inline struct vfio_ccw_private *vfio_ccw_get_priv(struct subchannel
> *sch)
> +{
> + struct vfio_ccw_private *private;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + private = dev_get_drvdata(&sch->dev);
> + if (private && !vfio_device_try_get(&private->vdev))
> + private = NULL;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return private;
> +}
you are right. After checking your ccw patch, the private free triggered
by vfio_ccw_free_private() should use kfree_rcu(). So it is not quite
same with other vfio_device users which only need kfree() to free the
vfio_device. So how can I address the difference when moving the vfio_device
alloc/free into vfio core? any suggestion?
@@ -164,14 +173,14 @@ static void vfio_ccw_free_private(struct vfio_ccw_private *private)
kmem_cache_free(vfio_ccw_io_region, private->io_region);
kfree(private->cp.guest_cp);
mutex_destroy(&private->io_mutex);
- kfree(private);
+ vfio_uninit_group_dev(&private->vdev);
+ kfree_rcu(private, rcu);
}
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/10-v3-57c1502c62fd+2190-ccw_mdev_jgg@nvidia.com/
Regards,
Yi Liu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists