On Friday, May 12, 2017 11:03:52 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 09, 2017 01:57:41 PM Lv Zheng wrote:
> > For all frequent late stage acpi_get_table() clone invocations, we should
> > only change them altogether, otherwise, excessive acpi_put_table() could
> > unexpectedly unmap the table used by the other users. Thus the current plan
> > is to change all acpi_get_table() clones together or to change none of
> > them. However in practical, this is not convenient as this can prevent
> > kernel developers' efforts of improving the late stage code quality before
> > waiting for the ACPICA upstream to improve first.
> >
> > This patch adds a validation count threashold, when it is reached, the
> > validation count can no longer be incremented/decremented to invalidate the
> > table descriptor (means preventing table unmappings) so that
> > acpi_put_table()
> > balance changes can be done independently to each others. Lv Zheng.
> >
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zh...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
> > include/acpi/actbl.h | 9 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > index 7abe665..04beafc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > @@ -416,9 +416,13 @@ acpi_tb_get_table(struct acpi_table_desc *table_desc,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - table_desc->validation_count++;
> > - if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> > - table_desc->validation_count--;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count < ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS) {
> > + table_desc->validation_count++;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count >= ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS)
> > {
> > + ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > + "Table %p, Validation count overflows\n",
> > + table_desc));
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > *out_table = table_desc->pointer;
> > @@ -445,13 +449,15 @@ void acpi_tb_put_table(struct acpi_table_desc
> > *table_desc)
> >
> > ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE(acpi_tb_put_table);
> >
> > - if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> > - ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > - "Table %p, Validation count is zero before
> > decrement\n",
> > - table_desc));
> > - return_VOID;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count < ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS) {
> > + table_desc->validation_count--;
> > + if (table_desc->validation_count >= ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS)
> > {
>
> Is this going to ever trigger?
>
> We've already verified that validation_count is not 0 and that it is less than
> ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS and we have decremented it, so how can it be
> greater than or equal to ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS here?
Wrong question, sorry.
I think that the check is in case validation_count was 0 before the
decrementation,
right?
So then, I'd still check if validation_count == 0 and if so, set it to
ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS.
Next, if validation_count => ACPI_MAX_TABLE_VALIDATIONS, I'd print the warning
message and return.
Then, the decrementation would not underflow, so it would be safe to do it.
Wouldn't that be somewhat easier to follow?
> > + ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > + "Table %p, Validation count underflows\n",
> > + table_desc));
> > + return_VOID;
> > + }
> > }
> > - table_desc->validation_count--;
> >
> > if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> >
Thanks,
Rafael
