On 2022/6/9 21:32, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 02:19:06PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
Is there a significant benefit to keeping both paths, or could we get away
with just always using RCU? Realistically, pagetable pages aren't likely to
be freed all that frequently, except perhaps at domain teardown, but that
shouldn't really be performance-critical, and I guess we could stick an RCU
sync point in iommu_domain_free() if we're really worried about releasing
larger quantities of pages back to the allocator ASAP?
I think you are right, anything that uses the iommu_iotlb_gather may
as well use RCU too.
IIRC the allocators already know that RCU is often sitting on
freed-memory and have some contigency to flush it out before OOMing,
so nothing special should be needed.
Fair enough. How about below code?
static void pgtble_page_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
{
struct page *page = container_of(rcu, struct page, rcu_head);
__free_pages(page, 0);
}
/*
* Free pages gathered in the freelist of iommu_iotlb_gather. Use RCU free
* way so that it's safe for lock-free page table walk.
*/
void iommu_free_iotlb_gather_pages(struct iommu_iotlb_gather *iotlb_gather)
{
struct page *page, *next;
list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next, &iotlb_gather->freelist,
lru) {
list_del(&page->lru);
call_rcu(&page->rcu_head, pgtble_page_free_rcu);
}
}
Best regards,
baolu
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
