[PATCH] pci-hyperv: use kmalloc to allocate hypercall params buffer

Long Li longli at microsoft.com
Tue Dec 6 00:37:08 UTC 2016



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 8:53 AM
> To: Long Li <longli at microsoft.com>
> Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys at microsoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang
> <haiyangz at microsoft.com>; Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas at google.com>;
> devel at linuxdriverproject.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-
> pci at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci-hyperv: use kmalloc to allocate hypercall params
> buffer
> 
> On Tue,  8 Nov 2016 14:04:38 -0800
> Long Li <longli at exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&hbus->retarget_msi_interrupt_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	params = &hbus->retarget_msi_interrupt_params;
> > +	memset(params, 0, sizeof(*params));
> > +	params->partition_id = HV_PARTITION_ID_SELF;
> > +	params->source = 1; /* MSI(-X) */
> > +	params->address = msi_desc->msg.address_lo;
> > +	params->data = msi_desc->msg.data;
> > +	params->device_id = (hbus->hdev->dev_instance.b[5] << 24) |
> >  			   (hbus->hdev->dev_instance.b[4] << 16) |
> >  			   (hbus->hdev->dev_instance.b[7] << 8) |
> >  			   (hbus->hdev->dev_instance.b[6] & 0xf8) |
> >  			   PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn);
> > -	params.vector = cfg->vector;
> > +	params->vector = cfg->vector;
> >
> >  	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, dest, cpu_online_mask)
> > -		params.vp_mask |= (1ULL <<
> vmbus_cpu_number_to_vp_number(cpu));
> > +		params->vp_mask |= (1ULL <<
> vmbus_cpu_number_to_vp_number(cpu));
> > +
> > +	hv_do_hypercall(HVCALL_RETARGET_INTERRUPT, params, NULL);
> >
> > -	hv_do_hypercall(HVCALL_RETARGET_INTERRUPT, &params, NULL);
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hbus->retarget_msi_interrupt_lock, flags);
> 
> It looks like the additional locking here is being overly paranoid.
> The caller is already holding the irq descriptor lock. Look at fixup_irqs.

You are right. On my test machine, there are two possible places calling hv_irq_unmask(): request _irq() and handle_edge_irq(). They both have desc->lock held when calling .irq_unmask on the chip. A review of the IRQ code shows that desc->lock is always held while calling chip->irq_unmask().

Since the lock doesn't do any harm and it is not on performance code path, we can remove the lock in the upcoming patches.


More information about the devel mailing list