On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:55:15PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Friday, 26 March 2021 4:15:36 PM AEDT Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 12:20:35PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > +static int __region_intersects(resource_size_t start, size_t size,
> > > + unsigned long flags, unsigned long desc)
> > > +{
> > > + struct resource res;
> > > + int type = 0; int other = 0;
> > > + struct resource *p;
> > > +
> > > + res.start = start;
> > > + res.end = start + size - 1;
> > > +
> > > + for (p = iomem_resource.child; p ; p = p->sibling) {
> > > + bool is_type = (((p->flags & flags) == flags) &&
> > > + ((desc == IORES_DESC_NONE) ||
> > > + (desc == p->desc)));
> >
> > is_type is a bad name, are we saying "is" as in boolean question?
> > Or is it short for something like intersection_type? I know you've
> > just moved the code over :)
>
> Yeah, I'm not a fan of that name either but I was just moving code over and
> couldn't come up with anything better :)
>
> It is a boolean question though - it is checking to see if resource *p is the
> same type (flags+desc) of region as what is being checked for intersection.
>
> > > +
> > > + if (resource_overlaps(p, &res))
> > > + is_type ? type++ : other++;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (type == 0)
> > > + return REGION_DISJOINT;
> > > +
> > > + if (other == 0)
> > > + return REGION_INTERSECTS;
> > > +
> > > + return REGION_MIXED;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * region_intersects() - determine intersection of region with known
> resources
> > > * @start: region start address
> > > @@ -546,31 +574,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(page_is_ram);
> > > int region_intersects(resource_size_t start, size_t size, unsigned long
> flags,
> > > unsigned long desc)
> > > {
> > > - struct resource res;
> > > - int type = 0; int other = 0;
> > > - struct resource *p;
> > > -
> > > - res.start = start;
> > > - res.end = start + size - 1;
> > > + int rc;
> > >
> > > read_lock(&resource_lock);
> > > - for (p = iomem_resource.child; p ; p = p->sibling) {
> > > - bool is_type = (((p->flags & flags) == flags) &&
> > > - ((desc == IORES_DESC_NONE) ||
> > > - (desc == p->desc)));
> > > -
> > > - if (resource_overlaps(p, &res))
> > > - is_type ? type++ : other++;
> > > - }
> > > + rc = __region_intersects(start, size, flags, desc);
> > > read_unlock(&resource_lock);
> > > -
> > > - if (type == 0)
> > > - return REGION_DISJOINT;
> > > -
> > > - if (other == 0)
> > > - return REGION_INTERSECTS;
> > > -
> > > - return REGION_MIXED;
> > > + return rc;
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(region_intersects);
> > >
> > > @@ -1171,31 +1180,17 @@ struct address_space *iomem_get_mapping(void)
> > > return smp_load_acquire(&iomem_inode)->i_mapping;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/**
> > > - * __request_region - create a new busy resource region
> > > - * @parent: parent resource descriptor
> > > - * @start: resource start address
> > > - * @n: resource region size
> > > - * @name: reserving caller's ID string
> > > - * @flags: IO resource flags
> > > - */
> > > -struct resource * __request_region(struct resource *parent,
> > > - resource_size_t start, resource_size_t n,
> > > - const char *name, int flags)
> > > +static bool request_region_locked(struct resource *parent,
> > > + struct resource *res, resource_size_t
> start,
> > > + resource_size_t n, const char *name,
> > > int
> flags)
> > > {
> > > - DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> > > - struct resource *res = alloc_resource(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > struct resource *orig_parent = parent;
> > > -
> > > - if (!res)
> > > - return NULL;
> > > + DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> >
> > This part of the diff looks confusing, do we have a waitqueue and we call
> > schedule() within a function called with the lock held?
>
> Good point. schedule() does get called but the lock is dropped first:
>
> if (conflict->flags & flags & IORESOURCE_MUXED) {
> add_wait_queue(&muxed_resource_wait, &wait);
> write_unlock(&resource_lock);
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> schedule();
> remove_wait_queue(&muxed_resource_wait, &wait);
> write_lock(&resource_lock);
> continue;
> }
>
> This isn't an issue though as it's only used for request_muxed_region() which
> isn't used for the ZONE_DEVICE allocation and by design doesn't search for
> free space. Ie. IORESOURCE_MUXED will never be set for
> request_free_mem_region().
>
> > >
> > > res->name = name;
> > > res->start = start;
> > > res->end = start + n - 1;
> > >
> > > - write_lock(&resource_lock);
> > > -
> > > for (;;) {
> > > struct resource *conflict;
> > >
> > > @@ -1230,16 +1225,39 @@ struct resource * __request_region(struct
> > > resource
> *parent,
> > > write_lock(&resource_lock);
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > > - /* Uhhuh, that didn't work out.. */
> > > - free_resource(res);
> > > - res = NULL;
> > > - break;
> > > + return false;
> > > }
> > > - write_unlock(&resource_lock);
> > >
> > > if (res && orig_parent == &iomem_resource)
> > > revoke_iomem(res);
> > >
> > > + return true;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * __request_region - create a new busy resource region
> > > + * @parent: parent resource descriptor
> > > + * @start: resource start address
> > > + * @n: resource region size
> > > + * @name: reserving caller's ID string
> > > + * @flags: IO resource flags
> > > + */
> > > +struct resource *__request_region(struct resource *parent,
> > > + resource_size_t start, resource_size_t n,
> > > + const char *name, int flags)
> > > +{
> > > + struct resource *res = alloc_resource(GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +
> > > + if (!res)
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + write_lock(&resource_lock);
> > > + if (!request_region_locked(parent, res, start, n, name, flags)) {
> > > + /* Uhhuh, that didn't work out.. */
> > > + free_resource(res);
> > > + res = NULL;
> > > + }
> > > + write_unlock(&resource_lock);
> >
> > Should the function be called __request_region_locked?
>
> This is the name of original function, so this is just maintaining the
> original behaviour by taking the lock and calling the inner function
> (request_region_locked) rather than having it coded directly there.
>
> __request_region() is rarely called directly and is mostly called via macros:
>
> include/linux/ioport.h:#define request_region(start,n,name)
> __request_region(&ioport_resource, (start), (n), (name), 0)
> include/linux/ioport.h:#define request_muxed_region(start,n,name)
> __request_region(&ioport_resource, (start), (n), (name), IORESOURCE_MUXED)
> include/linux/ioport.h:#define __request_mem_region(start,n,name, excl)
> __request_region(&iomem_resource, (start), (n), (name), excl)
> include/linux/ioport.h:#define request_mem_region(start,n,name)
> __request_region(&iomem_resource, (start), (n), (name), 0)
>
Makes sense, I guess this takes away from the caller having to call
the API again in the case of a conflict (a caller might never succeed
deterministically in the worst case)?
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com>
