Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.112.35 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.112.35; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:30:23 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
CC:     Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "mgurtovoy@nvidia.com" <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>,
        liulongfang <liulongfang@huawei.com>,
        "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
        "Wangzhou (B)" <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] hisi_acc_vfio_pci: Add support for VFIO live
 migration
Message-ID: <YVINv17OEHplrpeS@unreal>
References: <20210915095037.1149-7-shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
 <20210915130742.GJ4065468@nvidia.com>
 <fe5d6659e28244da82b7028b403e11ae@huawei.com>
 <20210916135833.GB327412@nvidia.com>
 <a440256250c14182b9eefc77d5d399b8@huawei.com>
 <20210927150119.GB964074@nvidia.com>
 <YVHqlzyIX3099Gtz@unreal>
 <20210927160627.GC964074@nvidia.com>
 <YVIKr48e8G1wSxYX@unreal>
 <20210927182224.GA1575668@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210927182224.GA1575668@nvidia.com>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2021 18:30:27.7674
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 330f91ff-5be4-4427-25e5-08d981e4e119
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.35];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT010.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR12MB2341
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 03:22:24PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:17:19PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> 
> > > The point is to all out a different locking regime that relies on the
> > > sriov enable/disable removing the VF struct devices
> > 
> > You can't avoid trylock, because this pci_get_sriov_pf_devdata() will be
> > called in VF where it already holds lock, so attempt to take PF lock
> > will cause to deadlock.
> 
> My whole point is we cannot use the device_lock *at all* and a
> pci_get_sriov_pf_devdata() would not have it.

Right

> 
> Instead it would have some test to confirm that the 'current' struct
> device is a VF of the 'target' struct device and thus the drvdata
> must be valid so long as the 'current' struct device hasn't completed
> remove.

I'm curious to see how can you implement it without holding VF lock.

> 
> It is a completely different locking scheme than device lock. It also
> relies on the PF driver placing the sriov enable/disable 'locks' in
> the correct place relative to their drvdata's.
> 
> Jason