linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] x86,trace: Add rcu_irq_enter/exit() in smp_trace_reschedule

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

Date:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:19:06 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86,trace: Add rcu_irq_enter/exit() in
 smp_trace_reschedule_interrupt()

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:21:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ Added Peter Z. and Paul ]
> >  void smp_trace_reschedule_interrupt(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  {
> >  	ack_APIC_irq();
> > +	rcu_irq_enter();
> >  	trace_reschedule_entry(RESCHEDULE_VECTOR);
> >  	__smp_reschedule_interrupt();
> >  	trace_reschedule_exit(RESCHEDULE_VECTOR);
> > +	rcu_irq_exit();
> 
> The question is, should we add normal irq_enter/exit here? As that
> should be OK to nest. There's a comment in scheduler_ipi():
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Not all reschedule IPI handlers call irq_enter/irq_exit, since
> 	 * traditionally all their work was done from the interrupt return
> 	 * path. Now that we actually do some work, we need to make sure
> 	 * we do call them.
> 	 *
> 	 * Some archs already do call them, luckily irq_enter/exit nest
> 	 * properly.
> 	 *
> 	 * Arguably we should visit all archs and update all handlers,
> 	 * however a fair share of IPIs are still resched only so this would
> 	 * somewhat pessimize the simple resched case.
> 	 */
> 
> just before it calls irq_enter(). Seems that not calling irq_enter() for
> the reschedule ipi interrupt is more of a legacy thing. It also states
> that its OK for an arch to call irq_enter() before calling this as it
> can nest. I wonder if we should invest time in fixing all archs and
> remove this irq_enter? But that's out of scope for this change.

That comment also states why I never did the arch sweep; doing
irq_enter()/irq_exit() for the pure empty reschedule interrupt makes it
more expensive.

Back when I introduced scheduler_ipi() I measured the amount of pure
resched interrupts (no schedule_ipi() content, pure interrupt return
path work) vs actually doing something in schedule_ipi() and found a
significant number of interrupts were 'pure'.

Things might have changed; but you'd better remeasure if you want to go
sweep the arch tree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/