linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] ARCv2: Elide sending new cross core intr if receiver didn't ack prev

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:32:42 +0530
From:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:	<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Chuck Jordan <Chuck.Jordan@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ARCv2: Elide sending new cross core intr if receiver
 didn't ack prev

On Tuesday 23 February 2016 02:41 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> ARConnect/MCIP IPI sending has a retry-wait loop in case caller had
> not seen a previous such interrupt. Turns out that it is not needed at
> all. Linux cross core calling allows coalescing multiple IPIs to same
> receiver - it is fine as long as there is one.
> 
> This logic is built into upper layer already, at a higher level of
> abstraction. ipi_send_msg_one() sets the actual msg payload, but it only
> calls MCIP IPI sending if msg holder was empty (using
> atomic-set-new-and-get-old construct). Thus it is unlikely that the
> retry-wait looping was ever getting exercised at all.

Turns out that this patch was needed for more serious reasons.
For experiment sake I reverted the IPI eliding optimization and immediately ran
into a deadlock, with LTP:trace_sched !

@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void ipi_send_msg_one(int cpu, enum ipi_msg_type msg)
         * IPI handler, because !@old means it has not yet dequeued the msg(s)
         * so @new msg can be a free-loader
         */
-       if (plat_smp_ops.ipi_send && !old)
+       if (plat_smp_ops.ipi_send)

-Vineet

> 
> Cc: Chuck Jordan <cjordan@...opsys.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>
> ---
>  arch/arc/kernel/mcip.c | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/mcip.c b/arch/arc/kernel/mcip.c
> index e30d5d428330..7afc3c703ed1 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/kernel/mcip.c
> +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/mcip.c
> @@ -40,26 +40,19 @@ static void mcip_ipi_send(int cpu)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mcip_lock, flags);
> +
>  	/*
> -	 * NOTE: We must spin here if the other cpu hasn't yet
> -	 * serviced a previous message. This can burn lots
> -	 * of time, but we MUST follows this protocol or
> -	 * ipi messages can be lost!!!
> -	 * Also, we must release the lock in this loop because
> -	 * the other side may get to this same loop and not
> -	 * be able to ack -- thus causing deadlock.
> +	 * If receiver already has a pending interrupt, elide sending this one.
> +	 * Linux cross core calling works well with concurrent IPIs
> +	 * coalesced into one
> +	 * see arch/arc/kernel/smp.c: ipi_send_msg_one()
>  	 */
> +	__mcip_cmd(CMD_INTRPT_READ_STATUS, cpu);
> +	ipi_was_pending = read_aux_reg(ARC_REG_MCIP_READBACK);
> +	if (!ipi_was_pending)
> +		__mcip_cmd(CMD_INTRPT_GENERATE_IRQ, cpu);
>  
> -	do {
> -		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mcip_lock, flags);
> -		__mcip_cmd(CMD_INTRPT_READ_STATUS, cpu);
> -		ipi_was_pending = read_aux_reg(ARC_REG_MCIP_READBACK);
> -		if (ipi_was_pending == 0)
> -			break; /* break out but keep lock */
> -		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mcip_lock, flags);
> -	} while (1);
> -
> -	__mcip_cmd(CMD_INTRPT_GENERATE_IRQ, cpu);
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mcip_lock, flags);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARC_IPI_DBG
>