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: <89a748fb5caee8be5d91806aa5dfd131e92d5d82.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] iommu/s390: Use RCU to allow concurrent domain_list
 iteration
From:   Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Gerd Bayer <gbayer@linux.ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@linux.ibm.com,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        svens@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:01:32 +0200
In-Reply-To: <Y1KgX8EwH8T+FgWC@nvidia.com>
References: <20221018145132.998866-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
         <20221018145132.998866-4-schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
         <Y07Dz/NROAMI0Hku@nvidia.com>
         <8e268ab5e0dadf86be5fd7ffaa9debb76cea67f3.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <Y0/lMCQ8oeXJ2HTg@nvidia.com>
         <f3551bb461b3ef3cfc1a0c644093816be1835b3f.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <Y1ErcEe82yjJI+ET@nvidia.com>
         <68d91d7a5aadbd46dc34470eccd6b86a84c9e47b.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <Y1KgX8EwH8T+FgWC@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 10:36 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 02:08:02PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 08:05 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:51:10AM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Ok that makes sense thanks for the explanation. So yes my assessment is
> > > > still that in this situation the IOTLB flush is architected to return
> > > > an error that we can ignore. Not the most elegant I admit but at least
> > > > it's simple. Alternatively I guess we could use call_rcu() to do the
> > > > zpci_unregister_ioat() but I'm not sure how to then make sure that a
> > > > subsequent zpci_register_ioat() only happens after that without adding
> > > > too much more logic.
> > > 
> > > This won't work either as the domain could have been freed before the
> > > call_rcu() happens, the domain needs to be detached synchronously
> > > 
> > > Jason
> > 
> > Yeah right, that is basically the same issue I was thinking of for a
> > subsequent zpci_register_ioat(). What about the obvious one. Just call
> > synchronize_rcu() before zpci_unregister_ioat()?
> 
> Ah, it can be done, but be prepared to wait >> 1s for synchronize_rcu
> to complete in some cases.
> 
> What you have seems like it could be OK, just deal with the ugly racy
> failure
> 
> Jason

I'd tend to go with synchronize_rcu(). It won't leave us with spurious
error logs for the failed IOTLB flushes and as you said one expects
detach to be synchronous. I don't think waiting in it will be a
problem. But this is definitely something you're more of an expert on
so I'll trust your judgement. Looking at other callers of
synchronize_rcu() quite a few of them look to be in similar
detach/release kind of situations though not sure how frequent and
performance critical IOMMU domain detaching is in comparison.

Thanks,
Niklas