Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-42946-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:57:31 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iommu: Use mutex instead of spinlock for
 iommu_device_list
Message-ID: <20240129145731.GD50608@ziepe.ca>
References: <20240126105341.78086-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <20240126105341.78086-2-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
 <BN9PR11MB5276E9618612DCF4DAE0CAE68C7E2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB5276E9618612DCF4DAE0CAE68C7E2@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 08:04:35AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 6:54 PM
> > 
> > The iommu_device_lock spinlock was used to protect the iommu device
> > list. However, there is no requirement to access the iommu device
> > list in interrupt context. Therefore, a mutex is sufficient.
> 
> I don't think that interrupt is the reason for spinlock otherwise
> spin_lock_irqsave() should be used instead.

Right, there is no touch of this from an interrupt

I suspect it is following the the general kernel wisdom that a
spinlock is better if the critical sections are very small.

Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>

Jason