[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aGIxtMZa1UsvACs4@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 14:41:56 +0800
From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>, "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"aneesh.kumar@...nel.org" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"nicolinc@...dia.com" <nicolinc@...dia.com>,
"aik@....com" <aik@....com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
"Xu, Yilun" <yilun.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] iommufd: Add iommufd_object_tombstone_user()
helper
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 05:52:26AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 11:38 AM
> >
> > @@ -239,6 +239,7 @@ static int iommufd_fops_release(struct inode *inode,
> > struct file *filp)
> > struct iommufd_sw_msi_map *next;
> > struct iommufd_sw_msi_map *cur;
> > struct iommufd_object *obj;
> > + bool empty;
>
> move into for(;;) loop
Yes.
>
> >
> > /*
> > * The objects in the xarray form a graph of "users" counts, and we
> > have
> > @@ -249,23 +250,35 @@ static int iommufd_fops_release(struct inode
> > *inode, struct file *filp)
> > * until the entire list is destroyed. If this can't progress then there
> > * is some bug related to object refcounting.
> > */
> > - while (!xa_empty(&ictx->objects)) {
> > + for (;;) {
> > unsigned int destroyed = 0;
> > unsigned long index;
> >
> > + empty = true;
> > xa_for_each(&ictx->objects, index, obj) {
> > + empty = false;
> > if (!refcount_dec_if_one(&obj->users))
> > continue;
> > +
> > destroyed++;
> > xa_erase(&ictx->objects, index);
> > iommufd_object_ops[obj->type].destroy(obj);
> > kfree(obj);
> > }
> > +
> > + if (empty)
> > + break;
> > +
> > /* Bug related to users refcount */
> > if (WARN_ON(!destroyed))
> > break;
> > }
> > - WARN_ON(!xa_empty(&ictx->groups));
>
> I didn't get the rationale of this change. tombstone only means the
> object ID reserved, but all the destroy work for the object has been
> done, e.g. after all idevice objects are destroyed there should be no
> valid igroup entries in ictx->groups (and there is no tombstone
> state for igroup).
>
> Is it a wrong change by misreading ictx->groups as ictx->objects?
Sorry, this is a true mistake.
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * There may be some tombstones left over from
> > + * iommufd_object_tombstone_user()
> > + */
> > + xa_destroy(&ictx->groups);
> >
>
> And here should be ictx->objects?
Yes, thanks for catching up.
- xa_destroy(&ictx->groups);
+ xa_destroy(&ictx->objects);
+
+ WARN_ON(!xa_empty(&ictx->groups));
Thanks,
Yilun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists