In tty layer, it use tty->ldisc_sem to proect tty_ldisc_ops.
So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also protect tty->disc_data;
For examlpe,
When cpu A is running ppp_synctty_ioctl that hold the tty->ldisc_sem,
at the same time if cpu B calls ppp_synctty_close, it will wait until
cpu A release tty->ldisc_sem. So I think it is unnecessary to have the
disc_data_lock;
cpu A cpu B
tty_ioctl tty_reopen
->hold tty->ldisc_sem ->hold tty->ldisc_sem(write), failed
->ld->ops->ioctl ->wait...
->release tty->ldisc_sem ->wait...OK,hold tty->ldisc_sem
->tty_ldisc_reinit
->tty_ldisc_close
->ld->ops->close
Signed-off-by: Gao Yan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c | 11 ++---------
drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c | 12 ++----------
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c
index 29a0917a8..20b50facd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c
@@ -127,17 +127,13 @@ static const struct ppp_channel_ops async_ops = {
* FIXME: this is no longer true. The _close path for the ldisc is
* now guaranteed to be sane.
*/
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(disc_data_lock);
static struct asyncppp *ap_get(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
- struct asyncppp *ap;
+ struct asyncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- read_lock(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
if (ap != NULL)
refcount_inc(&ap->refcnt);
- read_unlock(&disc_data_lock);
return ap;
}
@@ -214,12 +210,9 @@ ppp_asynctty_open(struct tty_struct *tty)
static void
ppp_asynctty_close(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
- struct asyncppp *ap;
+ struct asyncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- write_lock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
tty->disc_data = NULL;
- write_unlock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
if (!ap)
return;
diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c
index 0f338752c..53fb68e29 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c
@@ -129,17 +129,12 @@ ppp_print_buffer (const char *name, const __u8 *buf, int count)
*
* FIXME: Fixed in tty_io nowadays.
*/
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(disc_data_lock);
-
static struct syncppp *sp_get(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
- struct syncppp *ap;
+ struct syncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- read_lock(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
if (ap != NULL)
refcount_inc(&ap->refcnt);
- read_unlock(&disc_data_lock);
return ap;
}
@@ -213,12 +208,9 @@ ppp_sync_open(struct tty_struct *tty)
static void
ppp_sync_close(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
- struct syncppp *ap;
+ struct syncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- write_lock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
tty->disc_data = NULL;
- write_unlock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
if (!ap)
return;
--
2.17.1
Dear all：
Could I get your comments for the updates? If I can get a reply, it will help me a lot . Thanks
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/28/19
*******************************
----Original mail -----
发件人: gaoyan (RD)
发送时间: 2020年12月28日 15:16
收件人: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; gaoyan (RD) <[email protected]>
主题: [PATCH] net: remove disc_data_lock in ppp line discipline
In tty layer, it use tty->ldisc_sem to proect tty_ldisc_ops.
So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also protect tty->disc_data; For examlpe, When cpu A is running ppp_synctty_ioctl that hold the tty->ldisc_sem, at the same time if cpu B calls ppp_synctty_close, it will wait until cpu A release tty->ldisc_sem. So I think it is unnecessary to have the disc_data_lock;
cpu A cpu B
tty_ioctl tty_reopen
->hold tty->ldisc_sem ->hold tty->ldisc_sem(write), failed
->ld->ops->ioctl ->wait...
->release tty->ldisc_sem ->wait...OK,hold tty->ldisc_sem
->tty_ldisc_reinit
->tty_ldisc_close
->ld->ops->close
Signed-off-by: Gao Yan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c | 11 ++---------
drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c | 12 ++----------
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c index 29a0917a8..20b50facd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c
@@ -127,17 +127,13 @@ static const struct ppp_channel_ops async_ops = {
* FIXME: this is no longer true. The _close path for the ldisc is
* now guaranteed to be sane.
*/
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(disc_data_lock);
static struct asyncppp *ap_get(struct tty_struct *tty) {
- struct asyncppp *ap;
+ struct asyncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- read_lock(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
if (ap != NULL)
refcount_inc(&ap->refcnt);
- read_unlock(&disc_data_lock);
return ap;
}
@@ -214,12 +210,9 @@ ppp_asynctty_open(struct tty_struct *tty) static void ppp_asynctty_close(struct tty_struct *tty) {
- struct asyncppp *ap;
+ struct asyncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- write_lock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
tty->disc_data = NULL;
- write_unlock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
if (!ap)
return;
diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c index 0f338752c..53fb68e29 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c
@@ -129,17 +129,12 @@ ppp_print_buffer (const char *name, const __u8 *buf, int count)
*
* FIXME: Fixed in tty_io nowadays.
*/
-static DEFINE_RWLOCK(disc_data_lock);
-
static struct syncppp *sp_get(struct tty_struct *tty) {
- struct syncppp *ap;
+ struct syncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- read_lock(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
if (ap != NULL)
refcount_inc(&ap->refcnt);
- read_unlock(&disc_data_lock);
return ap;
}
@@ -213,12 +208,9 @@ ppp_sync_open(struct tty_struct *tty) static void ppp_sync_close(struct tty_struct *tty) {
- struct syncppp *ap;
+ struct syncppp *ap = tty->disc_data;
- write_lock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
- ap = tty->disc_data;
tty->disc_data = NULL;
- write_unlock_irq(&disc_data_lock);
if (!ap)
return;
--
2.17.1
> In tty layer, it use tty->ldisc_sem to proect tty_ldisc_ops.
> So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also protect tty->disc_data;
It might help by CC'ing TTY people, so that we could get this reviewed by
people who are familiar with TTY code.
Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> (supporter:TTY LAYER)
Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> (supporter:TTY LAYER)
Thanks!
> For examlpe,
> When cpu A is running ppp_synctty_ioctl that hold the tty->ldisc_sem,
> at the same time if cpu B calls ppp_synctty_close, it will wait until
> cpu A release tty->ldisc_sem. So I think it is unnecessary to have the
> disc_data_lock;
>
> cpu A cpu B
> tty_ioctl tty_reopen
> ->hold tty->ldisc_sem ->hold tty->ldisc_sem(write), failed
> ->ld->ops->ioctl ->wait...
> ->release tty->ldisc_sem ->wait...OK,hold tty->ldisc_sem
> ->tty_ldisc_reinit
> ->tty_ldisc_close
> ->ld->ops->close
IMHO an example might not be necessary. Examples are useful to show
incorrectness. But we cannot show correctness by examples because
examples are not exhaustive.
BTW, there're some typos:
"proect" -> "protect"
"examlpe" -> "example"
"that hold ..." -> "that holds ..."
"cpu A release ..." -> "cpu A releases ..."
> * FIXME: this is no longer true. The _close path for the ldisc is
> * now guaranteed to be sane.
> */
> *
> * FIXME: Fixed in tty_io nowadays.
> */
Since you are removing "disc_data_lock", please update (or remove) these
two comments. Thanks!