On 05/04/2012 12:34 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> Thanks for your comments!
>> I have thought about using pci_config_lock to serialize
>> access to the pci_mmcfg_list, but that may hurt MMCFG on x86_64
>> systems because mmconfig_64.c supports concurrent access to
>> the MMCFG space without holding the pci_config_lock. So I use
>> RCU to avoid possible performance penalty for x86_64 systems.
>
> Oh, right. I only looked at mmconfig_32.c, which uses the lock, and
> assumed _64.c was the same. I think you're right to avoid introducing
> locking where we didn't have it before.
>
>> There are two mechanisms to protect list_add_sorted()
>> from concurrent updates. The first case is, list_add_sorted()
>> may be called without holding any lock for serialization at
>> early booting stages because the system is still in single-threaded
>> mode. The second case is, pci_config_lock is used to serialize
>> concurrent modification to the pci_mmcfg_list if list_add_sorted()
>> is called at runtime.
>> The first case is cover by this patch, and the second case
>> is covered by "[PATCH V2 5/6] PCI, x86: introduce
>> pci_mmconfig_insert()/delete() for PCI root bridge hotplug".
>
> How hard would it be to convert the first (early boot) mechanism to
> use the second mechanism? It'd be nicer if there were only one path
> that we use both places, even if it means the early boot path acquires
> a lock that is technically unnecessary.
That should be easy, will change it.
>
>> On 2012-5-3 6:31, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jiang Liu<liuj97@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Use RCU list to protect mmconfig list from dynamic change
>>>> when supporting PCI host bridge hotplug.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced this is safe. But I'm not an RCU expert, so maybe
>>> you can convince me :)
>>>
>>> Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt says the update code still requires
>>> mutual exclusion, and I don't see any in list_add_sorted() or its
>>> callers.
>>>
>>> MMCONFIG accesses are already protected by the pci_config_lock
>>> spinlock, so I don't think the performance advantages of RCU really
>>> gain us anything in this situation.
>>>
>>> It would definitely be simpler to just hold pci_config_lock while
>>> updating and searching the pci_mmcfg_list, but if there are issues
>>> with that, you can educate me about what they are and why this RCU
>>> code is correct.
>>>
>>> Bjorn
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu<jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c | 11 ++++++-----
>>>> arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_32.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>>>> arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_64.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>>>> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c
>>>> b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c
>>>> index 5e2cd2a..3bcc361 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig-shared.c
>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>>> #include<linux/bitmap.h>
>>>> #include<linux/dmi.h>
>>>> #include<linux/slab.h>
>>>> +#include<linux/rculist.h>
>>>> #include<asm/e820.h>
>>>> #include<asm/pci_x86.h>
>>>> #include<asm/acpi.h>
>>>> @@ -45,20 +46,20 @@ static __init void free_all_mmcfg(void)
>>>> pci_mmconfig_remove(cfg);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static __init void list_add_sorted(struct pci_mmcfg_region *new)
>>>> +static __devinit void list_add_sorted(struct pci_mmcfg_region *new)
>>>> {
>>>> struct pci_mmcfg_region *cfg;
>>>>
>>>> /* keep list sorted by segment and starting bus number */
>>>> - list_for_each_entry(cfg,&pci_mmcfg_list, list) {
>>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(cfg,&pci_mmcfg_list, list) {
>>>>
>>>> if (cfg->segment> new->segment ||
>>>> (cfg->segment == new->segment&&
>>>> cfg->start_bus>= new->start_bus)) {
>>>> - list_add_tail(&new->list,&cfg->list);
>>>> + list_add_tail_rcu(&new->list,&cfg->list);
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> - list_add_tail(&new->list,&pci_mmcfg_list);
>>>> + list_add_tail_rcu(&new->list,&pci_mmcfg_list);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static __devinit struct pci_mmcfg_region *pci_mmconfig_alloc(int
>>>> segment,
>>>> @@ -111,7 +112,7 @@ struct pci_mmcfg_region *pci_mmconfig_lookup(int
>>>> segment, int bus)
>>>> {
>>>> struct pci_mmcfg_region *cfg;
>>>>
>>>> - list_for_each_entry(cfg,&pci_mmcfg_list, list)
>>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(cfg,&pci_mmcfg_list, list)
>>>>
>>>> if (cfg->segment == segment&&
>>>> cfg->start_bus<= bus&& bus<= cfg->end_bus)
>>>>
>>>> return cfg;
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_32.c b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_32.c
>>>> index 5372e86..5dad04a 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_32.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_32.c
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>>>>
>>>> #include<linux/pci.h>
>>>> #include<linux/init.h>
>>>> +#include<linux/rcupdate.h>
>>>> #include<asm/e820.h>
>>>> #include<asm/pci_x86.h>
>>>> #include<acpi/acpi.h>
>>>> @@ -60,9 +61,12 @@ err: *value = -1;
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> base = get_base_addr(seg, bus, devfn);
>>>> - if (!base)
>>>> + if (!base) {
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> goto err;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pci_config_lock, flags);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -80,6 +84,7 @@ err: *value = -1;
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pci_config_lock, flags);
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -93,9 +98,12 @@ static int pci_mmcfg_write(unsigned int seg, unsigned
>>>> int bus,
>>>> if ((bus> 255) || (devfn> 255) || (reg> 4095))
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> base = get_base_addr(seg, bus, devfn);
>>>> - if (!base)
>>>> + if (!base) {
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pci_config_lock, flags);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -113,6 +121,7 @@ static int pci_mmcfg_write(unsigned int seg, unsigned
>>>> int bus,
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pci_config_lock, flags);
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_64.c b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_64.c
>>>> index 915a493..acc48c5 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_64.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/mmconfig_64.c
>>>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>>>> #include<linux/init.h>
>>>> #include<linux/acpi.h>
>>>> #include<linux/bitmap.h>
>>>> +#include<linux/rcupdate.h>
>>>> #include<asm/e820.h>
>>>> #include<asm/pci_x86.h>
>>>>
>>>> @@ -34,9 +35,12 @@ err: *value = -1;
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn);
>>>> - if (!addr)
>>>> + if (!addr) {
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> goto err;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> switch (len) {
>>>> case 1:
>>>> @@ -49,6 +53,7 @@ err: *value = -1;
>>>> *value = mmio_config_readl(addr + reg);
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -62,9 +67,12 @@ static int pci_mmcfg_write(unsigned int seg, unsigned
>>>> int bus,
>>>> if (unlikely((bus> 255) || (devfn> 255) || (reg> 4095)))
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> addr = pci_dev_base(seg, bus, devfn);
>>>> - if (!addr)
>>>> + if (!addr) {
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> switch (len) {
>>>> case 1:
>>>> @@ -77,6 +85,7 @@ static int pci_mmcfg_write(unsigned int seg, unsigned
>>>> int bus,
>>>> mmio_config_writel(addr + reg, value);
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> --
>>>> 1.7.5.4
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
