On 11.07.22 04:50, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 07:45:12PM +0200, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: >> >> >> On 01.07.22 01:29, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> >>> >>> I'm kind of thinking that should tpm_tis_data have a lock for its >>> contents? >> >> Most of the tpm_tis_data structure elements are set once during init and >> then never changed but only read. So no need for locking for these. The >> exceptions I see are >> >> - flags >> - locality_count >> - locality > > I'd still go for single data struct lock, since this lock would > be taken in every transmit flow. Well in both cases, transmit and receive, we end up in wait_for_tmp_stat(). Whatever lock we hold at this time cannot be taken in the interrupt handler, since this would deadlock (wait_for_tmp_stat() waits for the interrupt handler to complete but holds the lock that the interrupt handler needs to proceed). So in the interrupt handler we need something that is not held during the whole transmit/receive flow. This is the reason why the locality_count_mutex only protects the one thing we have to take care of in the interrupt handler, namely the locality counter. > It makes the whole thing easier > to maintain over time, and does not really affect scalability> > This brings me to another question: what does this lock protect > against given that tpm_try_get_ops() already takes tpm_mutex? > It's not clear and that should be somehow reasoned in the commit > message. See above, we cannot take the tpm mutex in the interrupt handler for the same reason. > Anyway, *if* a lock is needed the granularity should be the whole > struct. > > BR, Jarkko Regards, Lino
