Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-66094-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 23:01:04 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/23] KVM: arm64: vgic: Use atomics to count LPIs
Message-ID: <Zc1GMFjvy_f1KsXr@linux.dev>
References: <20240213093250.3960069-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev>
 <20240213093250.3960069-8-oliver.upton@linux.dev>
 <861q9f56x6.wl-maz@kernel.org>
 <Zc0HIorNZG9KG5Mg@linux.dev>
 <86wmr64xyo.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <86wmr64xyo.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:01:19PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > Of course, we only have 3 marks, so that's a bit restrictive from a
> > > concurrency perspective, but since most callers hold a lock, it should
> > > be OK.
> > 
> > They all hold *a* lock, but maybe not the same one! :)
> 
> Indeed. But as long as there isn't more than 3 locks (and that the
> xarray is OK being concurrently updated with marks), we're good!

Oh, you mean to give each existing caller their own mark?

> > Maybe we should serialize the use of markers on the LPI list on the
> > config_lock. A slight misuse, but we need a mutex since we're poking at
> > guest memory. Then we can go through the whole N-dimensional locking
> > puzzle and convince ourselves it is still correct.
> 
> Maybe. This thing is already seeing so many abuses that one more may
> not matter much. Need to see how it fits in the whole hierarchy of
> GIC-related locks...

It doesn't work. We have it that the config_lock needs to be taken
outside the its_lock.

Too many damn locks!

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver