Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <0a20dd06-f459-638e-cb4d-8255ab1a1f23@igalia.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 10:00:58 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/30] misc/pvpanic: Convert regular spinlock into trylock
 on panic path
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, bhe@redhat.com,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, x86@kernel.org,
        kernel-dev@igalia.com, kernel@gpiccoli.net, halves@canonical.com,
        fabiomirmar@gmail.com, alejandro.j.jimenez@oracle.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, arnd@arndb.de, bp@alien8.de,
        corbet@lwn.net, d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, dyoung@redhat.com,
        feng.tang@intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        mikelley@microsoft.com, hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com,
        jgross@suse.com, john.ogness@linutronix.de, keescook@chromium.org,
        luto@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        senozhatsky@chromium.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
        tglx@linutronix.de, vgoyal@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        will@kernel.org,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        Mihai Carabas <mihai.carabas@oracle.com>,
        Shile Zhang <shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Wang ShaoBo <bobo.shaobowang@huawei.com>,
        zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
References: <20220427224924.592546-1-gpiccoli@igalia.com>
 <20220427224924.592546-6-gpiccoli@igalia.com> <YnpXGOXicwdy1E6n@alley>
From:   "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
In-Reply-To: <YnpXGOXicwdy1E6n@alley>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/05/2022 09:14, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
>> With that said, it's dangerous to use regular spinlocks in such path,
>> as introduced by commit b3c0f8774668 ("misc/pvpanic: probe multiple instances").
>> This patch fixes that by replacing regular spinlocks with the trylock
>> safer approach.
> 
> It seems that the lock is used just to manipulating a list. A super
> safe solution would be to use the rcu API: rcu_add_rcu() and
> list_del_rcu() under rcu_read_lock(). The spin lock will not be
> needed and the list will always be valid.
> 
> The advantage would be that it will always call members that
> were successfully added earlier. That said, I am not familiar
> with pvpanic and am not sure if it is worth it.
> 
>> It also fixes an old comment (about a long gone framebuffer code) and
>> the notifier priority - we should execute hypervisor notifiers early,
>> deferring this way the panic action to the hypervisor, as expected by
>> the users that are setting up pvpanic.
> 
> This should be done in a separate patch. It changes the behavior.
> Also there might be a discussion whether it really should be
> the maximal priority.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Petr

Thanks for the review Petr. Patch was already merged - my goal was to be
concise, i.e., a patch per driver / module, so the patch kinda fixes
whatever I think is wrong with the driver with regards panic handling.

Do you think it worth to remove this patch from Greg's branch just to
split it in 2? Personally I think it's not worth, but opinions are welcome.

About the RCU part, this one really could be a new patch, a good
improvement patch - it makes sense to me, we can think about that after
the fixes I guess.

Cheers,


Guilherme