[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4aXBAxPS7hXJ_RKMzZu60yTr7gK1m3K8z0yq1mjYn3dyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:57:40 +0200
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/vt-d: Use try_cmpxchg64() in intel_pasid_get_entry()
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 3:44 PM Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024/5/23 21:34, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >>> + if (!try_cmpxchg64(&dir[dir_index].val, &tmp,
> >>> + (u64)virt_to_phys(entries) | PASID_PTE_PRESENT)) {
> >> Above change will cause a dead loop during boot. It should be
> > No, it is correct as written:
> >
> > if (cmpxchg64(*ptr, 0, new))
> >
> > can be written as:
> >
> > if (cmpxchg64(*ptr, 0, new) != 0)
> >
> > this is equivalent to:
> >
> > tmp = 0ULL;
> > if (!try_cmpxchg64(*ptr, &tmp, new))
>
> The return value of both cmpxchg64() and try_cmpxchg64() is the old
> value that was loaded from the memory location, right?
Actually, try_cmpxchg() returns true if successful and false if it fails.
tmp = 0ULL;
if (!try_cmpxchg64(*ptr, &tmp, new))
The logic in the above snippet can be interpreted as:
if we fail to compare *ptr with 0, then:
iommu_free_page(entries);
goto retry;
as intended in the original code.
Thanks,
Uros.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists