From: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
Cc: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"david@redhat.com" <david@redhat.com>,
"joao.m.martins@oracle.com" <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"osalvador@suse.de" <osalvador@suse.de>,
"linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
"nvdimm@lists.linux.dev" <nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] dax/bus: Use guard(device) in sysfs attribute helpers
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:53:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2023121517-flammable-ragweed-d42e@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <89ea0a46cd1cf22393c6b05a50cd3e719ab6a4ba.camel@intel.com>
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 05:32:50PM +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 09:15 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:25:27PM -0700, Vishal Verma wrote:
> > > > Use the guard(device) macro to lock a 'struct device', and unlock it
> > > > automatically when going out of scope using Scope Based Resource
> > > > Management semantics. A lot of the sysfs attribute writes in
> > > > drivers/dax/bus.c benefit from a cleanup using these, so change these
> > > > where applicable.
> > >
> > > Wait, why are you needing to call device_lock() at all here? Why is dax
> > > special in needing this when no other subsystem requires it?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
> > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/dax/bus.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/dax/bus.c b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> > > > index 1ff1ab5fa105..6226de131d17 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/dax/bus.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> > > > @@ -294,13 +294,10 @@ static ssize_t available_size_show(struct device *dev,
> > > > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > > > {
> > > > struct dax_region *dax_region = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > - unsigned long long size;
> > > >
> > > > - device_lock(dev);
> > > > - size = dax_region_avail_size(dax_region);
> > > > - device_unlock(dev);
> > > > + guard(device)(dev);
> > >
> > > You have a valid device here, why are you locking it? How can it go
> > > away? And if it can, shouldn't you have a local lock for it, and not
> > > abuse the driver core lock?
> >
> > Yes, this is a driver-core lock abuse written by someone who should have
> > known better. And yes, a local lock to protect the dax_region resource
> > tree should replace this. A new rwsem to synchronize all list walks
> > seems appropriate.
>
> I see why _a_ lock is needed both here and in size_show() - the size
> calculations do a walk over discontiguous ranges, and we don't want the
> device to get reconfigured in the middle of that. A different local
> lock seems reasonable - however can that go as a separate cleanup that
> stands on its own?
Sure, but do not add a conversion to use guard(device) here, as that
will be pointless as you will just use a real lock instead.
> For this series, I'll add a cleanup to replace the sprintfs with
> sysfs_emit().
Why not have that be the first patch in the series? Then add your local
lock and convert everything to use it instead of the device lock?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-15 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-15 5:25 [PATCH v6 0/4] Add DAX ABI for memmap_on_memory Vishal Verma
2023-12-15 5:25 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] Documentatiion/ABI: Add ABI documentation for sys-bus-dax Vishal Verma
2023-12-15 5:25 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] dax/bus: Use guard(device) in sysfs attribute helpers Vishal Verma
2023-12-15 5:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-15 6:33 ` Verma, Vishal L
2023-12-15 16:14 ` gregkh
2023-12-15 7:27 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2023-12-15 17:15 ` Dan Williams
2023-12-15 17:32 ` Verma, Vishal L
2023-12-15 17:53 ` gregkh [this message]
2023-12-19 15:27 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-12-15 5:25 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] mm/memory_hotplug: export mhp_supports_memmap_on_memory() Vishal Verma
2023-12-15 5:25 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] dax: add a sysfs knob to control memmap_on_memory behavior Vishal Verma
2023-12-15 7:53 ` Huang, Ying
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2023121517-flammable-ragweed-d42e@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=joao.m.martins@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nvdimm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox