| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6185796.9I7OmaAAcQ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 03:04:47 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] sched/idle: Use explicit broadcast oneshot control function
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 02:50:22 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 02:58:37 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > On 28/04/15 15:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 03:37:44 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 03:31:54 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 02:37:10 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >>>>> Sudeep:
> > >>>>>> At-least I observed issue only when I am using hardware broadcast timer.
> > >>>>>> It doesn't hang when I am using hrtimer as broadcast timer in which case
> > >>>>>> one of the cpu will be not enter deeper idle states that lose timer.
> > >>>>>> I will rerun on v4.1-rc1 and post the complete log.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So the bug here is that cpuidle_enter() enables interrupts, so the
> > >>>>> assumption about them being not enabled made by
> > >>>>> tick_broadcast_oneshot_control() is actually not valid.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It looks like we need to acquire the clockevents_lock at least in this
> > >>>>> particular case. Let me see where to put it and I'll send a patch for
> > >>>>> testing.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Aha that looks very much like it. Put me on the patch and I'll
> > >>>> take it for a spin.
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, so something like the below for starters (the _irqsave variant is used to
> > >>> avoid adding one more WARN_ON(irqs_disabled()) in there).
> > >>>
> > >>> I haven't tested it, but then I can't reproduce the original issue in the
> > >>> first place.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, the whole "broadcast" thing could be done from cpuidle_enter()
> > >> in the first place, but then we could not avoid the problem with the cpuidle
> > >> *callback* enabling interrupts possibly in there anyway (not to mention the
> > >> "coupled" stuff).
> > >
> > > That said, if the given state is marked with CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP, I really
> > > wouldn't expect it to re-enable interrupts on exit and the "coupled" thing
> > > seems to be fundamentally at odds with that flag either.
> > >
> > > So it should be possible to move the "broadcast" logic into the cpuidle layer,
> > > which I'm going to try to do.
> > >
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >
> > > Please test the patch I've sent, though, as it should bring the code back to
> > > where it was before the clockevents_notify() removal and it'd be good to verify
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > I tested your patch and it works now. Anyways I am continuing to run
> > stress tests on my board. I will report if I find any issues.
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> Below is the patch I came up with in the meantime.
>
> This moves the "switch to broadcast" timer logic into
> cpuidle_enter_state() which allows tick_broadcast_exit() to be
> called directly with interrupts disabled (as required), but
> it also adds a fallback branch reflecting the 4.0 and earlier
> behavior for idle states that enable interrupts on exit
> from their ->enter callbacks.
>
> I'm not aware of any valid cases when CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP can be
> set for such states, but people may try to add stuff like that in the
> future, so it's better to catch that (hence the WARN_ON_ONCE) and do
> our best to handle it gracefully anyway, IMO.
>
> The "if (entered_state == -EBUSY)" check is conservative. It may
> be better to do "if (entered_state < 0)" and fall back to the default
> on all errors, but that's not what we do today (I guess the concern
> would be "what if the state ->enter returns an error after entering
> and exiting the idle state, in which case we may miss a wakeup event
> if we fall back to the default").
Actually, if my understanding of things is correct (the local clock event
device cannot go away from under code executed with interrupts disabled
on the local CPU), the simplified one below should be sufficient.
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
kernel/sched/idle.c | 16 ++--------------
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/idle.c
+++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/idle.c
@@ -81,7 +81,6 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
struct cpuidle_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(cpuidle_devices);
struct cpuidle_driver *drv = cpuidle_get_cpu_driver(dev);
int next_state, entered_state;
- unsigned int broadcast;
bool reflect;
/*
@@ -150,17 +149,6 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
goto exit_idle;
}
- broadcast = drv->states[next_state].flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP;
-
- /*
- * Tell the time framework to switch to a broadcast timer
- * because our local timer will be shutdown. If a local timer
- * is used from another cpu as a broadcast timer, this call may
- * fail if it is not available
- */
- if (broadcast && tick_broadcast_enter())
- goto use_default;
-
/* Take note of the planned idle state. */
idle_set_state(this_rq(), &drv->states[next_state]);
@@ -174,8 +162,8 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void)
/* The cpu is no longer idle or about to enter idle. */
idle_set_state(this_rq(), NULL);
- if (broadcast)
- tick_broadcast_exit();
+ if (entered_state == -EBUSY)
+ goto use_default;
/*
* Give the governor an opportunity to reflect on the outcome
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
@@ -158,9 +158,18 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_d
int entered_state;
struct cpuidle_state *target_state = &drv->states[index];
+ bool broadcast = !!(target_state->flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP);
ktime_t time_start, time_end;
s64 diff;
+ /*
+ * Tell the time framework to switch to a broadcast timer because our
+ * local timer will be shut down. If a local timer is used from another
+ * CPU as a broadcast timer, this call may fail if it is not available.
+ */
+ if (broadcast && tick_broadcast_enter())
+ return -EBUSY;
+
trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(index, dev->cpu);
time_start = ktime_get();
@@ -169,6 +178,13 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_d
time_end = ktime_get();
trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, dev->cpu);
+ if (broadcast) {
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled()))
+ local_irq_disable();
+
+ tick_broadcast_exit();
+ }
+
if (!cpuidle_state_is_coupled(dev, drv, entered_state))
local_irq_enable();
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists