Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/26] mm/mmu_notifiers: pass private data down to alloc_notifier()

From: Jason Gunthorpe <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:00:56 -0400

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 07:23:36PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> The new allocation scheme introduced by 2c7933f53f6b ("mm/mmu_notifiers:
> add a get/put scheme for the registration") provides a convenient way
> for users to attach notifier data to an mm. However, it would be even
> better to create this notifier data atomically.
> 
> Since the alloc_notifier() callback only takes an mm argument at the
> moment, some users have to perform the allocation in two times.
> alloc_notifier() initially creates an incomplete structure, which is
> then finalized using more context once mmu_notifier_get() returns. This
> second step requires carrying an initialization lock in the notifier
> data and playing dirty tricks to order memory accesses against live
> invalidation.

This was the intended pattern. Tthere shouldn't be an real issue as
there shouldn't be any data on which to invalidate, ie the later patch
does:

+       list_for_each_entry_rcu(bond, &io_mm->devices, mm_head)

And that list is empty post-allocation, so no 'dirty tricks' required.

The other op callback is release, which also cannot be called as the
caller must hold a mmget to establish the notifier.

So just use the locking that already exists. There is one function
that calls io_mm_get() which immediately calls io_mm_attach, which
immediately grabs the global iommu_sva_lock.

Thus init the pasid for the first time under that lock and everything
is fine.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the approach in this patch, but
it seems unneeded in this case..

Jason

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel