Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] vdpa_sim: flush workers on suspend

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/20/2024 10:32 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:21 PM Steve Sistare
<steven.sistare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Flush to guarantee no workers are running when suspend returns.
Add a lock to enforce ordering between clearing running, flushing,
and posting new work in vdpasim_kick_vq.  It must be a spin lock
because vdpasim_kick_vq may be reached va eventfd_write.

Signed-off-by: Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
  drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h |  1 +
  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
index 8ffea8430f95..67ed49d95bf0 100644
--- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
+++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static u16 vdpasim_get_vq_size(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx)
                 return VDPASIM_QUEUE_MAX;
  }

-static void vdpasim_kick_vq(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx)
+static void vdpasim_do_kick_vq(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx)
  {
         struct vdpasim *vdpasim = vdpa_to_sim(vdpa);
         struct vdpasim_virtqueue *vq = &vdpasim->vqs[idx];
@@ -337,6 +337,15 @@ static void vdpasim_kick_vq(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx)
                 vdpasim_schedule_work(vdpasim);
  }

+static void vdpasim_kick_vq(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx)
+{
+       struct vdpasim *vdpasim = vdpa_to_sim(vdpa);
+
+       spin_lock(&vdpasim->kick_lock);
+       vdpasim_do_kick_vq(vdpa, idx);
+       spin_unlock(&vdpasim->kick_lock);
+}
+
  static void vdpasim_set_vq_cb(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u16 idx,
                               struct vdpa_callback *cb)
  {
@@ -520,8 +529,11 @@ static int vdpasim_suspend(struct vdpa_device *vdpa)
         struct vdpasim *vdpasim = vdpa_to_sim(vdpa);

         mutex_lock(&vdpasim->mutex);
+       spin_lock(&vdpasim->kick_lock);
         vdpasim->running = false;
+       spin_unlock(&vdpasim->kick_lock);
         mutex_unlock(&vdpasim->mutex);
+       kthread_flush_work(&vdpasim->work);

         return 0;
  }
@@ -537,7 +549,7 @@ static int vdpasim_resume(struct vdpa_device *vdpa)
         if (vdpasim->pending_kick) {
                 /* Process pending descriptors */
                 for (i = 0; i < vdpasim->dev_attr.nvqs; ++i)
-                       vdpasim_kick_vq(vdpa, i);
+                       vdpasim_do_kick_vq(vdpa, i);

                 vdpasim->pending_kick = false;
         }
diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h
index bb137e479763..5eb6ca9c5ec5 100644
--- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h
+++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct vdpasim {
         bool pending_kick;
         /* spinlock to synchronize iommu table */
         spinlock_t iommu_lock;
+       spinlock_t kick_lock;

It looks to me this is not initialized?

Yup, I lost that line while fiddling with different locking schemes.
Thanks, will fix in V4.

@@ -236,6 +236,7 @@ struct vdpasim *vdpasim_create(struct vdpasim_dev_attr *dev_attr,

        mutex_init(&vdpasim->mutex);
        spin_lock_init(&vdpasim->iommu_lock);
+       spin_lock_init(&vdpasim->kick_lock);

With that fix, does this patch earn your RB?

- Steve

  };

  struct vdpasim *vdpasim_create(struct vdpasim_dev_attr *attr,
--
2.39.3






[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux