On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 02:44:49PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > On Mon, 2022-10-24 at 13:26 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 05:22:24PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the explanation, still would like to grok this a bit more if > > > you don't mind. If I do read things correctly synchronize_rcu() should > > > run in the conext of the VFIO ioctl in this case and shouldn't block > > > anything else in the kernel, correct? At least that's how I understand > > > the synchronize_rcu() comments and the fact that e.g. > > > net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c:virtio_vsock_remove() also does a > > > synchronize_rcu() and can be triggered from user-space too. > > > > Yes, but I wouldn't look in the kernel to understand if things are OK > > > > > So we're > > > more worried about user-space getting slowed down rather than a Denial- > > > of-Service against other kernel tasks. > > > > Yes, functionally it is OK, but for something like vfio with vIOMMU > > you could be looking at several domains that have to be detached > > sequentially and with grace periods > 1s you can reach multiple > > seconds to complete something like a close() system call. Generally it > > should be weighed carefully > > > > Jason > > Thanks for the detailed explanation. Then let's not put a > synchronize_rcu() in detach, as I said as long as the I/O translation > tables are there an IOTLB flush after zpci_unregister_ioat() should > result in an ignorable error. That said, I think if we don't have the > synchronize_rcu() in detach we need it in s390_domain_free() before > freeing the I/O translation tables. Yes, it would be appropriate to free those using one of the rcu free'rs, (eg kfree_rcu) not synchronize_rcu() Jason
