Hi Tom,
On 2023-12-04 at 15:41:46 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> Hi Rex,
>
> On Mon, 2023-12-04 at 23:00 +0800, Rex Zhang wrote:
> > Hi, Tom,
> >
> > On 2023-12-01 at 14:10:32 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > +static int iaa_wq_put(struct idxd_wq *wq)
> > > +{
> > > + struct idxd_device *idxd = wq->idxd;
> > > + struct iaa_wq *iaa_wq;
> > > + bool free = false;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock(&idxd->dev_lock);
> > > + iaa_wq = idxd_wq_get_private(wq);
> > > + if (iaa_wq) {
> > > + iaa_wq->ref--;
> > > + if (iaa_wq->ref == 0 && iaa_wq->remove) {
> > > + __free_iaa_wq(iaa_wq);
> > > + idxd_wq_set_private(wq, NULL);
> > > + free = true;
> > > + }
> > > + idxd_wq_put(wq);
> > > + } else {
> > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > + }
> > > + spin_unlock(&idxd->dev_lock);
> > __free_iaa_wq() may cause schedule, whether it should be move out of
> > the
> > context between spin_lock() and spin_unlock()?
>
> Yeah, I suppose it makes more sense to have it below anyway, will move
> it there.
>
> > > + if (free)
> > > + kfree(iaa_wq);
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > @@ -800,12 +1762,38 @@ static void iaa_crypto_remove(struct
> > > idxd_dev *idxd_dev)
> > >
> > > remove_iaa_wq(wq);
> > >
> > > + spin_lock(&idxd->dev_lock);
> > > + iaa_wq = idxd_wq_get_private(wq);
> > > + if (!iaa_wq) {
> > > + spin_unlock(&idxd->dev_lock);
> > > + pr_err("%s: no iaa_wq available to remove\n",
> > > __func__);
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (iaa_wq->ref) {
> > > + iaa_wq->remove = true;
> > > + } else {
> > > + wq = iaa_wq->wq;
> > > + __free_iaa_wq(iaa_wq);
> > > + idxd_wq_set_private(wq, NULL);
> > > + free = true;
> > > + }
> > > + spin_unlock(&idxd->dev_lock);
> > __free_iaa_wq() may cause schedule, whether it should be move out of
> > the
> > context between spin_lock() and spin_unlock()?
>
> Same.
>
> > > +
> > > + if (free)
> > > + kfree(iaa_wq);
> > > +
> > > idxd_drv_disable_wq(wq);
> > > rebalance_wq_table();
> > >
> > > - if (nr_iaa == 0)
> > > + if (nr_iaa == 0) {
> > > + iaa_crypto_enabled = false;
> > Is it necessary to add iaa_unregister_compression_device() here?
> > All iaa devices are disabled cause the variable first_wq will be
> > true,
> > if enable wq, iaa_register_compression_device() will fail due to the
> > algorithm is existed.
>
> No, this is required by review input from a previous version - the
> compression device can only be unregistered on module exit.
Do it mean disabling all WQs followed by enabling WQ is unacceptable?
User must do "rmmod iaa_crypto" before enabling WQ in this case.
Thanks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
> > > free_wq_table();
> > > + module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> > >
> > > + pr_info("iaa_crypto now DISABLED\n");
> > > + }
> > > +out:
> > > mutex_unlock(&iaa_devices_lock);
> > > mutex_unlock(&wq->wq_lock);
> > > }
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rex Zhang
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
>
