[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230804075504.MxYvbNle@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 09:55:04 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode: Remove microcode_mutex.
On 2023-08-03 14:15:13 [-0700], Sohil Mehta wrote:
> Nit: The full stop at the end is not needed.
>
> On 8/3/2023 1:32 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > microcode_mutex is only used by reload_store(). It has a comment saying
> > "to synchronize with each other". This probably means the sysfs
> > interface vs the legacy interface which was removed in commit
> > 181b6f40e9ea8 ("x86/microcode: Rip out the OLD_INTERFACE").
> >
>
> There is also commit b6f86689d5b7 ("x86/microcode: Rip out the subsys
> interface gunk") which last year removed another usage of microcode_mutex.
Okay.
> > The sysfs interface does not need additional synchronisation vs itself
> > because it is provided as kernfs_ops::mutex which is acquired in
> > kernfs_fop_write_iter().
> >
> > Remove superfluous microcode_mutex.
>
> I agree, the current usage does look unnecessary.
>
> Maybe reword the commit message to say that after these two Rip outs
> there are no of *other* usages of microcode_mutex to synchronize with?
Okay.
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> > ---
> > This poped up as "defined but not used" on RT builds without
> > CONFIG_MICROCODE_LATE_LOADING enabled.
>
> This issue has been raised a couple of times recently but the
> justification has been deemed insufficient since it can't be reproduced
> with a .config file.
The PREEMPT_RT's implementation of struct mutex is different which makes
it easier for the compiler to spot an used mutex. The !RT's
implementation has list_head pointing to the mutex as part of
MUTEX_INIT which marks the variable as used.
> See:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230324114720.1756466-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de/
>
> and
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230522062713.427998-1-christian.gmeiner@gmail.com/
>
> However, your current justification of not needing the mutex itself
> seems reasonable to me.
So everyone tried to move it but me…
…
> The code changes look fine to me.
>
> You can also add below to the patch.
Will do.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists