linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] irq_work: Architecture support for remote irq work raise

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]

Message-ID: <20140512174130.GA6127@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 12 May 2014 19:41:33 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] irq_work: Architecture support for remote irq work
 raise

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:17:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:26:49PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:56:50AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:33:53AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > We are going to extend irq work to support remote queuing.
> > > > 
> > > > So lets add a cpu argument to arch_irq_work_raise(). The architectures
> > > > willing to support that must then provide the backend to raise irq work
> > > > IPIs remotely.
> > > > 
> > > > Initial support is provided for x86 and ARM since they are easily
> > > > extended. The other archs that overwrite arch_irq_work_raise() seem
> > > > to use local clock interrupts and therefore need deeper rewrite of their
> > > > irq work support to implement remote raising.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > > 
> > > Why not borrow the smp_call_function IPI for the remote bits? We could
> > > limit the 'safe from NMI' to the local works. And we validate this by
> > > putting a WARN_ON(in_nmi()) in irq_work_queue_on().
> > 
> > Right, but although I don't need it to be safe from NMI, I need it
> > to be callable concurrently and when irqs are disabled.
> > 
> > So we can't use smp_call_function_single() for that. But we can use the async
> > version in which case we must keep the irq work claim. But that's
> > about the same than smp_queue_function_single() we had previously
> > and we are back with our csd_lock issue.
> 
> Who said anything about using smp_call_function_single()?

Ah shortcutting, doesn't look bad indeed.

> 
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> index a82170e2fa78..2fc9d8ece05a 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ void __weak arch_irq_work_raise(void)
>   *
>   * Can be re-enqueued while the callback is still in progress.
>   */
> -bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> +static __always_inline bool
> +__irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
>  {
>  	/* Only queue if not already pending */
>  	if (!irq_work_claim(work))
> @@ -78,16 +79,31 @@ bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
>  	 * for the next tick.
>  	 */
>  	if (!(work->flags & IRQ_WORK_LAZY) || tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> -		if (!this_cpu_cmpxchg(irq_work_raised, 0, 1))
> -			arch_irq_work_raise();
> +		if (cmpxchg(&__get_cpu_var(irq_work_raised, 0, 1) == 0)) {
> +			if (cpu == smp_processor_id() || cpu == -1)
> +				arch_irq_work_raise();
> +			else
> +				arch_send_call_function_single_ipi();
> +		}

Ok that needs some more tuning with the raised flag and the destination list
to pick, but I get the idea.

>  	}
>  
>  	preempt_enable();
>  
>  	return true;
>  }
> +
> +bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> +{
> +	return __irq_work_queue_on(work, -1);
> +}
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue);
>  
> +bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
> +{
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi());
> +	return __irq_work_queue_on(work, cpu);
> +}
> +
>  bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void)
>  {
>  	struct llist_head *this_list;
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 06d574e42c72..0fd53963c4fb 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -198,6 +198,12 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
>  		csd->func(csd->info);
>  		csd_unlock(csd);
>  	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * First run the synchronous callbacks, people are waiting on them;
> +	 * then run the async ones.
> +	 */
> +	irq_work_run();
>  }

Alright, I'm reiterating with that.

Thanks.
--
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/