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:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 11:07:14 -0800
From:   Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
To:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     tj@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        brijesh.singh@amd.com, jon.grimm@amd.com, eric.vantassell@amd.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com, corbet@lwn.net, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, gingell@google.com,
        rientjes@google.com, dionnaglaze@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 1/2] cgroup: sev: Add misc cgroup controller
Message-ID: <YEu74hkEPEyvxC85@google.com>
References: <20210304231946.2766648-1-vipinsh@google.com>
 <20210304231946.2766648-2-vipinsh@google.com>
 <YEpod5X29YqMhW/g@blackbook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <YEpod5X29YqMhW/g@blackbook>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 07:59:03PM +0100, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> Given different two-fold nature (SEV caller vs misc controller) of some
> remarks below, I think it makes sense to split this into two patches:
> a) generic controller implementation,
> b) hooking the controller into SEV ASIDs management.

Sounds good. I will split it.

> > +	if (misc_res_capacity[type])
> > +		cg->res[type].max = max;
> In theory, parallel writers can clash here, so having the limit atomic
> type to prevent this would resolve it. See also commit a713af394cf3
> ("cgroup: pids: use atomic64_t for pids->limit").

We should be fine without atomic64_t because we are using unsigned
long and not 64 bit explicitly. This will work on both 32 and 64 bit
machines.

But I will add READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE because of potential chances of
load tearing and store tearing.

Do you agree?

> > +static int misc_cg_capacity_show(struct seq_file *sf, void *v)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> > +	unsigned long cap;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < MISC_CG_RES_TYPES; i++) {
> > +		cap = READ_ONCE(misc_res_capacity[i]);
> Why is READ_ONCE only here and not in other places that (actually) check
> against the set capacity value? Also, there should be a paired
> WRITE_ONCCE in misc_cg_set_capacity().

This was only here to avoid multiple reads of capacity and making sure
if condition and seq_print will see the same value. Also, I was not
aware of load and store tearing of properly aligned and machine word
size variables. I will add READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE at
other places.

Thanks
Vipin