[PATCH v11 2/4] uacce: add uacce driver
dave.jiang at intel.com
Thu Jan 16 03:43:41 AEDT 2020
On 1/15/20 4:18 AM, zhangfei wrote:
> Hi, Greg
> On 2020/1/14 下午10:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:34:55AM +0800, zhangfei wrote:
>>> Hi, Greg
>>> Thanks for the review.
>>> On 2020/1/12 上午3:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:48:37AM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>>>>> +static int uacce_fops_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
>>>>> + struct uacce_mm *uacce_mm = NULL;
>>>>> + struct uacce_device *uacce;
>>>>> + struct uacce_queue *q;
>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>> + uacce = xa_load(&uacce_xa, iminor(inode));
>>>>> + if (!uacce)
>>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>>> + if (!try_module_get(uacce->parent->driver->owner))
>>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> Why are you trying to grab the module reference of the parent device?
>>>> Why is that needed and what is that going to help with here?
>>>> This shouldn't be needed as the module reference of the owner of the
>>>> fileops for this module is incremented, and the "parent" module depends
>>>> on this module, so how could it be unloaded without this code being
>>>> Yes, if you build this code into the kernel and the "parent" driver
>>>> is a
>>>> module, then you will not have a reference, but when you remove that
>>>> parent driver the device will be removed as it has to be unregistered
>>>> before that parent driver can be removed from the system, right?
>>>> Or what am I missing here?
>>> The refcount here is preventing rmmod "parent" module after fd is
>>> since user driver has mmap kernel memory to user space, like mmio,
>>> which may
>>> still in-use.
>>> With the refcount protection, rmmod "parent" module will fail until
>>> application free the fd.
>>> log like: rmmod: ERROR: Module hisi_zip is in use
>> But if the "parent" module is to be unloaded, it has to unregister the
>> "child" device and that will call the destructor in here and then you
>> will tear everything down and all should be good.
>> There's no need to "forbid" a module from being unloaded, even if it is
>> being used. Look at all networking drivers, they work that way, right?
> Thanks Greg for the kind suggestion.
> I still have one uncertainty.
> Does uacce has to block process continue accessing the mmapped area when
> remove "parent" module?
> Uacce can block device access the physical memory when parent module
> call uacce_remove.
> But application is still running, and suppose it is not the kernel
> driver's responsibility to call unmap.
> I am looking for some examples in kernel,
> looks vfio does not block process continue accessing when
> vfio_unregister_iommu_driver either.
> In my test, application will keep waiting after rmmod parent, until
> ctrl+c, when unmap is called.
> During the process, kernel does not report any error.
> Do you have any advice?
Would it work to call unmap_mapping_range() on the char dev
inode->i_mappings? I think you need to set the vma->fault function ptr
for the vm_operations_struct in the original mmap(). After the mappings
are unmapped, you can set a state variable to trigger the return of
VM_FAULT_SIGBUS in the ->fault function when the user app accesses the
mmap region again and triggers a page fault. The user app needs to be
programmed to catch exceptions to deal with that.
>>>>> +static void uacce_release(struct device *dev)
>>>>> + struct uacce_device *uacce = to_uacce_device(dev);
>>>>> + kfree(uacce);
>>>>> + uacce = NULL;
>>>> That line didn't do anything :)
>>> Yes, this is a mistake.
>>> It is up to caller to set to NULL to prevent release multi times.
>> Release function is called by the driver core which will not touch the
>> value again.
> Yes, I understand, it's my mistake. Will remove it.
More information about the Linux-accelerators