Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 21:22:45 -0400
From:   Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
To:     Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Cc:     mpe@ellerman.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, aik@ozlabs.ru,
        paulmck@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/kvm/book3s64/vio: fix some RCU-list locks
Message-ID: <20200527012245.GJ991@lca.pw>
References: <20200510051834.2011-1-cai@lca.pw>
 <20200527011323.GA293451@thinks.paulus.ozlabs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200527011323.GA293451@thinks.paulus.ozlabs.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:13:23AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 01:18:34AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > It is unsafe to traverse kvm->arch.spapr_tce_tables and
> > stt->iommu_tables without the RCU read lock held. Also, add
> > cond_resched_rcu() in places with the RCU read lock held that could take
> > a while to finish.
> 
> This mostly looks fine.  The cond_resched_rcu() in kvmppc_tce_validate
> doesn't seem necessary (the list would rarely have more than a few
> dozen entries) and could be a performance problem given that TCE
> validation is a hot-path.
> 
> Are you OK with me modifying the patch to take out that
> cond_resched_rcu(), or is there some reason why it's essential that it
> be there?

Feel free to take out that cond_resched_rcu(). Your reasoning makes
sense.