| Message ID | 20231212094725.22184-4-jgross@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | xen/spinlock: make recursive spinlocks a dedicated type | expand |
Hi Juergen, On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote: > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h > index 1cd9120eac..20d15f34dd 100644 > --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; > lock profiling on: > > Global locks which should be subject to profiling must be declared via > - DEFINE_SPINLOCK. > + DEFINE_[R]SPINLOCK. > > For locks in structures further measures are necessary: > - the structure definition must include a profile_head with exactly this > @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; > - the single locks which are subject to profiling have to be initialized > via > > - spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); > + [r]spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); > > with ptr being the main structure pointer and lock the spinlock field > > @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { > spinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ > static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ > _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) > +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) \ > + rspinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ > + static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ > + _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) > > -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) \ > +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, locktype) \ If I am not mistaken the double-underscore prefix is a violation in MISRA. So can this be renamed to: spin_lock_init_prof__()? The rest of the code looks fine. I have checked the lock you are modifying in common/drivers and they all are meant to be recursive lock: Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> Cheers,
On 12.12.23 13:57, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote: >> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h >> index 1cd9120eac..20d15f34dd 100644 >> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h >> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; >> lock profiling on: >> Global locks which should be subject to profiling must be declared via >> - DEFINE_SPINLOCK. >> + DEFINE_[R]SPINLOCK. >> For locks in structures further measures are necessary: >> - the structure definition must include a profile_head with exactly this >> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; >> - the single locks which are subject to profiling have to be initialized >> via >> - spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); >> + [r]spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); >> with ptr being the main structure pointer and lock the spinlock field >> @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { >> spinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >> static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >> _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >> +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) \ >> + rspinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >> + static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >> + _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >> -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) \ >> +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, locktype) \ > > If I am not mistaken the double-underscore prefix is a violation in MISRA. So > can this be renamed to: > > spin_lock_init_prof__()? Fine with me. Note that __lock_profile_data_##l and __lock_profile_##name seem to violate MISRA, too. Probably a good idea to change them as well? This should probably be done as a prereq patch then? > > The rest of the code looks fine. I have checked the lock you are modifying in > common/drivers and they all are meant to be recursive lock: > > Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> Thanks, Juergen
Hi Juergen, On 12/12/2023 13:04, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 12.12.23 13:57, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h >>> index 1cd9120eac..20d15f34dd 100644 >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h >>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; >>> lock profiling on: >>> Global locks which should be subject to profiling must be >>> declared via >>> - DEFINE_SPINLOCK. >>> + DEFINE_[R]SPINLOCK. >>> For locks in structures further measures are necessary: >>> - the structure definition must include a profile_head with >>> exactly this >>> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; >>> - the single locks which are subject to profiling have to be >>> initialized >>> via >>> - spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); >>> + [r]spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); >>> with ptr being the main structure pointer and lock the >>> spinlock field >>> @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { >>> spinlock_t l = >>> _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >>> static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = >>> _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >>> _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >>> +#define >>> DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) \ >>> + rspinlock_t l = >>> _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >>> + static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = >>> _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >>> + _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >>> -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, >>> l) \ >>> +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, >>> locktype) \ >> >> If I am not mistaken the double-underscore prefix is a violation in >> MISRA. So can this be renamed to: >> >> spin_lock_init_prof__()? > > Fine with me. > > Note that __lock_profile_data_##l and __lock_profile_##name seem to violate > MISRA, too. Probably a good idea to change them as well? This should > probably > be done as a prereq patch then? It would be preferable if this is done in a separate patch. But I don't mind if this is not part of this series or if you don't want to do it. They are existing violations and not the only ones in the codebase. But we should try to avoid adding new ones. Cheers,
On 12.12.2023 13:57, Julien Grall wrote: > On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote: >> @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { >> spinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >> static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >> _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >> +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) \ >> + rspinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >> + static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >> + _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >> >> -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) \ >> +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, locktype) \ > > If I am not mistaken the double-underscore prefix is a violation in > MISRA. So can this be renamed to: > > spin_lock_init_prof__()? Is the new parameter needed at all? Can't we use typeof((s)->l) in place of passing the type explicitly? Jan
On 21.12.23 11:34, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 12.12.2023 13:57, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { >>> spinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >>> static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >>> _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >>> +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) \ >>> + rspinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >>> + static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >>> + _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >>> >>> -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) \ >>> +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, locktype) \ >> >> If I am not mistaken the double-underscore prefix is a violation in >> MISRA. So can this be renamed to: >> >> spin_lock_init_prof__()? > > Is the new parameter needed at all? Can't we use typeof((s)->l) in place of > passing the type explicitly? IMO spin_lock_init_prof() should be usable for spinlock_t only, and rspin_lock_init_prof() for rspinlock_t only. Using typeof() would make either of them usable for both types. Juergen
On 21.12.2023 12:06, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 21.12.23 11:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 12.12.2023 13:57, Julien Grall wrote: >>> On 12/12/2023 09:47, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { >>>> spinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >>>> static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >>>> _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >>>> +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) \ >>>> + rspinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ >>>> + static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ >>>> + _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) >>>> >>>> -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) \ >>>> +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, locktype) \ >>> >>> If I am not mistaken the double-underscore prefix is a violation in >>> MISRA. So can this be renamed to: >>> >>> spin_lock_init_prof__()? >> >> Is the new parameter needed at all? Can't we use typeof((s)->l) in place of >> passing the type explicitly? > > IMO spin_lock_init_prof() should be usable for spinlock_t only, and > rspin_lock_init_prof() for rspinlock_t only. Using typeof() would make > either of them usable for both types. Fair point. Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h index 05dfe35502..8a6e0c283f 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h @@ -596,7 +596,7 @@ unsigned long domain_get_maximum_gpfn(struct domain *d); /* Definition of an mm lock: spinlock with extra fields for debugging */ typedef struct mm_lock { - spinlock_t lock; + rspinlock_t lock; int unlock_level; int locker; /* processor which holds the lock */ const char *locker_function; /* func that took it */ diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h index 00b1bc402d..b05cad1752 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ DECLARE_PERCPU_RWLOCK_GLOBAL(p2m_percpu_rwlock); static inline void mm_lock_init(mm_lock_t *l) { - spin_lock_init(&l->lock); + rspin_lock_init(&l->lock); l->locker = -1; l->locker_function = "nobody"; l->unlock_level = 0; diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c index c5954cdb1a..dc97755391 100644 --- a/xen/common/domain.c +++ b/xen/common/domain.c @@ -627,8 +627,8 @@ struct domain *domain_create(domid_t domid, atomic_set(&d->refcnt, 1); RCU_READ_LOCK_INIT(&d->rcu_lock); - spin_lock_init_prof(d, domain_lock); - spin_lock_init_prof(d, page_alloc_lock); + rspin_lock_init_prof(d, domain_lock); + rspin_lock_init_prof(d, page_alloc_lock); spin_lock_init(&d->hypercall_deadlock_mutex); INIT_PAGE_LIST_HEAD(&d->page_list); INIT_PAGE_LIST_HEAD(&d->extra_page_list); diff --git a/xen/common/ioreq.c b/xen/common/ioreq.c index 62b907f4c4..652c18a9b5 100644 --- a/xen/common/ioreq.c +++ b/xen/common/ioreq.c @@ -1331,7 +1331,7 @@ unsigned int ioreq_broadcast(ioreq_t *p, bool buffered) void ioreq_domain_init(struct domain *d) { - spin_lock_init(&d->ioreq_server.lock); + rspin_lock_init(&d->ioreq_server.lock); arch_ioreq_domain_init(d); } diff --git a/xen/drivers/char/console.c b/xen/drivers/char/console.c index 0666564ec9..76e455bacd 100644 --- a/xen/drivers/char/console.c +++ b/xen/drivers/char/console.c @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int __read_mostly sercon_handle = -1; int8_t __read_mostly opt_console_xen; /* console=xen */ #endif -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(console_lock); +static DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(console_lock); /* * To control the amount of printing, thresholds are added. @@ -1178,7 +1178,7 @@ void console_force_unlock(void) { watchdog_disable(); spin_debug_disable(); - spin_lock_init(&console_lock); + rspin_lock_init(&console_lock); serial_force_unlock(sercon_handle); console_locks_busted = 1; console_start_sync(); diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c index 28ed8ea817..d604ed5634 100644 --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ struct pci_seg { } bus2bridge[MAX_BUSES]; }; -static spinlock_t _pcidevs_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; +static DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(_pcidevs_lock); void pcidevs_lock(void) { diff --git a/xen/include/xen/sched.h b/xen/include/xen/sched.h index 3609ef88c4..c6604aef78 100644 --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h @@ -376,9 +376,9 @@ struct domain rcu_read_lock_t rcu_lock; - spinlock_t domain_lock; + rspinlock_t domain_lock; - spinlock_t page_alloc_lock; /* protects all the following fields */ + rspinlock_t page_alloc_lock; /* protects all the following fields */ struct page_list_head page_list; /* linked list */ struct page_list_head extra_page_list; /* linked list (size extra_pages) */ struct page_list_head xenpage_list; /* linked list (size xenheap_pages) */ @@ -597,7 +597,7 @@ struct domain #ifdef CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER /* Lock protects all other values in the sub-struct */ struct { - spinlock_t lock; + rspinlock_t lock; struct ioreq_server *server[MAX_NR_IOREQ_SERVERS]; } ioreq_server; #endif diff --git a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h index 1cd9120eac..20d15f34dd 100644 --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; lock profiling on: Global locks which should be subject to profiling must be declared via - DEFINE_SPINLOCK. + DEFINE_[R]SPINLOCK. For locks in structures further measures are necessary: - the structure definition must include a profile_head with exactly this @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ union lock_debug { }; - the single locks which are subject to profiling have to be initialized via - spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); + [r]spin_lock_init_prof(ptr, lock); with ptr being the main structure pointer and lock the spinlock field @@ -109,12 +109,16 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { spinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) \ + rspinlock_t l = _SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(NULL); \ + static struct lock_profile __lock_profile_data_##l = _LOCK_PROFILE(l); \ + _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(l) -#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) \ +#define __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, locktype) \ do { \ struct lock_profile *prof; \ prof = xzalloc(struct lock_profile); \ - (s)->l = (spinlock_t)_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(prof); \ + (s)->l = (locktype)_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(prof); \ if ( !prof ) \ { \ printk(XENLOG_WARNING \ @@ -128,6 +132,9 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { (s)->profile_head.elem_q = prof; \ } while( 0 ) +#define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, spinlock_t) +#define rspin_lock_init_prof(s, l) __spin_lock_init_prof(s, l, rspinlock_t) + void _lock_profile_register_struct( int32_t type, struct lock_profile_qhead *qhead, int32_t idx); void _lock_profile_deregister_struct(int32_t type, @@ -151,8 +158,10 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead { }; .debug =_LOCK_DEBUG, \ } #define DEFINE_SPINLOCK(l) spinlock_t l = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED +#define DEFINE_RSPINLOCK(l) rspinlock_t l = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED #define spin_lock_init_prof(s, l) spin_lock_init(&((s)->l)) +#define rspin_lock_init_prof(s, l) rspin_lock_init(&((s)->l)) #define lock_profile_register_struct(type, ptr, idx) #define lock_profile_deregister_struct(type, ptr) #define spinlock_profile_printall(key) @@ -182,8 +191,10 @@ typedef struct spinlock { #endif } spinlock_t; +typedef spinlock_t rspinlock_t; #define spin_lock_init(l) (*(l) = (spinlock_t)SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED) +#define rspin_lock_init(l) (*(l) = (rspinlock_t)SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED) void _spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock); void _spin_lock_cb(spinlock_t *lock, void (*cb)(void *data), void *data);
Introduce a new type "rspinlock_t" to be used for recursive spinlocks. For now it is only an alias of spinlock_t, so both types can still be used for recursive spinlocks. This will be changed later, though. Switch all recursive spinlocks to the new type. Define the initializer helpers and use them where appropriate. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> --- V2: - carved out from V1 patch --- xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h | 2 +- xen/arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h | 2 +- xen/common/domain.c | 4 ++-- xen/common/ioreq.c | 2 +- xen/drivers/char/console.c | 4 ++-- xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c | 2 +- xen/include/xen/sched.h | 6 +++--- xen/include/xen/spinlock.h | 19 +++++++++++++++---- 8 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)