Hi,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Heiko Carstens <hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 06:05:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * vdso_update_begin - Start of a VDSO update section
>>> + *
>>> + * Allows architecture code to safely update the architecture specific VDSO
>>> + * data.
>>> + */
>>> +void vdso_update_begin(void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct vdso_data *vdata = __arch_get_k_vdso_data();
>>> +
>>> + raw_spin_lock(&timekeeper_lock);
>>> + vdso_write_begin(vdata);
>>> +}
>>
>> I would assume that this only works if vdso_update_begin() is called
>> with irqs disabled, otherwise it could deadlock, no?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Maybe something like:
>>
>> void vdso_update_begin(unsigned long *flags)
>> {
>> struct vdso_data *vdata = __arch_get_k_vdso_data();
>>
>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&timekeeper_lock, *flags);
>> vdso_write_begin(vdata);
>
> Shudder. Why not returning flags?
>
>> }
>>
>> void vdso_update_end(unsigned long *flags)
>
> Ditto, why pointer and not value?
>
>> {
>> struct vdso_data *vdata = __arch_get_k_vdso_data();
>>
>> vdso_write_end(vdata);
>> __arch_sync_vdso_data(vdata);
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timekeeper_lock, *flags);
>> }
>>
>> ? Just wondering.
>
> Thought about that briefly, but then hated the flags thing and delegated
> it to the caller. Lockdep will yell if that lock is taken with
> interrupts enabled :)
>
> But aside of the pointer vs. value thing, I'm fine with doing it in the
> functions.
Thanks Thomas & Heiko. I'll incorporate the changes into my patchset and
send an updated version. Thomas, i think it's fine if i update your
patch and we take it through the s390 tree?
Regards
Sven
