RE: [PATCH net-next 3/6] devlink: Count struct devlink consumers

[Keller, Jacob E]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 9:07 AM
> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David S . Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Guangbin Huang
> <huangguangbin2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>; Jiri
> Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shannon Nelson
> <snelson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Yisen Zhuang <yisen.zhuang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Yufeng
> Mo <moyufeng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] devlink: Count struct devlink consumers
> 
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 18:53:45 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 08:47:41AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 12:57:28 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The struct devlink itself is protected by internal lock and doesn't
> > > > need global lock during operation. That global lock is used to protect
> > > > addition/removal new devlink instances from the global list in use by
> > > > all devlink consumers in the system.
> > > >
> > > > The future conversion of linked list to be xarray will allow us to
> > > > actually delete that lock, but first we need to count all struct devlink
> > > > users.
> > >
> > > Not a problem with this set but to state the obvious the global devlink
> > > lock also protects from concurrent execution of all the ops which don't
> > > take the instance lock (DEVLINK_NL_FLAG_NO_LOCK). You most likely know
> > > this but I thought I'd comment on an off chance it helps.
> >
> > The end goal will be something like that:
> > 1. Delete devlink lock
> > 2. Rely on xa_lock() while grabbing devlink instance (past devlink_try_get)
> > 3. Convert devlink->lock to be read/write lock to make sure that we can run
> > get query in parallel.
> > 4. Open devlink netlink to parallel ops, ".parallel_ops = true".
> 
> IIUC that'd mean setting eswitch mode would hold write lock on
> the dl instance. What locks does e.g. registering a dl port take
> then?

Also that I think we have some cases where we want to allow the driver to allocate new devlink objects in response to adding a port, but still want to block other global operations from running?