mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Lv Zheng <zetalog@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3915288.8qJPC28FTg@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <89693a14ceb97e3d1fa7cc098b15c73f5b176863.1493357251.git.lv.zheng@intel.com>

On Friday, April 28, 2017 01:30:20 PM Lv Zheng wrote:
> For all frequent late stage acpi_get_table() clone invocations, we should
> only fix them altogether, otherwise, excessive acpi_put_table() could
> unexpectedly unmap the table used by the other users. Thus the current plan
> is to fix all acpi_get_table() clones together or to fix none of them.

I honestly don't think that fixing none of them is a valid option here.

> This prevents kernel developers from improving the late stage code quality
> without waiting for the ACPICA upstream to improve first.
> 
> This patch adds a mechanism to stop decrementing validation count to
> prevent the table unmapping operations so that acpi_put_table() balance
> fixes can be done independently to each others.
> 
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> index 7abe665..b517bd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> @@ -445,12 +445,18 @@ void acpi_tb_put_table(struct acpi_table_desc *table_desc)
>  
>  	ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE(acpi_tb_put_table);
>  
> -	if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> +	if ((table_desc->validation_count + 1) == 0) {

This means that validation_count has reached the maximum value, right?

>  		ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> -			      "Table %p, Validation count is zero before decrement\n",
> +			      "Table %p, Validation count is about to expire, decrement is unsafe\n",
>  			      table_desc));

So why is it unsafe to decrement it?

>  		return_VOID;
>  	}
> +	if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> +		ACPI_ERROR((AE_INFO,
> +			   "Table %p, Validation count is zero before decrement\n",
> +			   table_desc));
> +		return_VOID;
> +	}
>  	table_desc->validation_count--;
>  
>  	if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> 

Thanks,
Rafael

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-28 21:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-27  8:22 [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Lv Zheng
2017-04-27  8:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-04-27 22:32   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-27 22:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-28  1:24   ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28  3:57   ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28  5:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Lv Zheng
2017-04-28  5:28 ` [PATCH v3 " Lv Zheng
2017-04-28  5:30 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 20:56   ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2017-05-04  7:18     ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-04 15:45       ` Dan Williams
2017-05-05  0:53         ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-05 20:43       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-09  1:58         ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28  5:30 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] ACPI: sysfs: Fix acpi_get_table() leak Lv Zheng
2017-04-28  5:30 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-05-09  5:57 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Lv Zheng
2017-05-09  5:57 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-05-12 21:03   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-12 21:41     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-15  6:32     ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-09  5:57 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] ACPI: sysfs: Fix acpi_get_table() leak Lv Zheng
2017-05-09  5:57 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-06-12 13:12   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-06-07  4:54 ` [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-06-07  6:41   ` Dan Williams
2017-06-07 21:14     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-06-07 21:24       ` Dan Williams
2017-06-08  2:24         ` Zheng, Lv

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3915288.8qJPC28FTg@aspire.rjw.lan \
    --to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=zetalog@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®