| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:02:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jacob Shin <jacob.w.shin@...il.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Fr�d�ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, spg_linux_kernel@....com,
x86@...nel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] perf/x86/amd/power: Add AMD accumulated power
reporting mechanism
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:04:38PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
> I just quickly looked at about the spinlock on -rt mode. Because
> realtime linux kernel provides two kinds of spinlock, the original
> spinlock_t will be replaced the one which is able to sleep, actually,
> like mutex. And another one (you mentioned here, raw_spinlock_t) can
> keep on non-sleep behavior, that is the real spinlock.
>
> And my lock here also will be nested under perf_event_context::lock,
> right?
Yep.
> > I have a lockdep patch somewhere that checks these ordering things; I
> > should rebase and post that again.
> >
>
> Can you CC me when you post that patch next time?
Sure.
> > One should not use GFP_ATOMIC if at all possible, also no, -rt cannot do
> > _any_ allocations from this site.
> >
>
> OK, that's because allocation might sleep when IRQ disabled. That's
> incorrect.
Right.
Its related to the above, the allocator locks are spinlock_t and as a
consequence of them becoming a blocking lock, spin_lock_irq() will also
no longer disable IRQs.
The CPU_STARTING notifier however will still be called with IRQs
disabled because it is CPU bringup.
So on -rt even GFP_ATOMIC will no longer work here.
> I draft an update diff that based on original patch, please take a
> look.
>
> 8<--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c
> index 69ef234..e71d993 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd_power.c
> @@ -46,10 +46,17 @@ static unsigned int cu_num;
> static u64 max_cu_acc_power;
>
> struct power_pmu {
> - spinlock_t lock;
> + raw_spinlock_t lock;
> struct list_head active_list;
> struct pmu *pmu; /* pointer to power_pmu_class */
> local64_t cpu_sw_pwr_ptsc;
> + /*
> + * These two cpumasks is used for avoiding the allocations on
> + * CPU_STARTING phase. Because power_cpu_prepare will be
> + * called on IRQs disabled status.
> + */
> + cpumask_var_t mask;
> + cpumask_var_t tmp_mask;
> };
>
> static struct pmu pmu_class;
> @@ -126,9 +133,9 @@ static void pmu_event_start(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> struct power_pmu *pmu = __this_cpu_read(amd_power_pmu);
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> __pmu_event_start(pmu, event);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> }
>
> static void pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> @@ -137,7 +144,7 @@ static void pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
>
> /* mark event as deactivated and stopped */
> if (!(hwc->state & PERF_HES_STOPPED)) {
> @@ -155,7 +162,7 @@ static void pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> hwc->state |= PERF_HES_UPTODATE;
> }
>
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> }
>
> static int pmu_event_add(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> @@ -164,14 +171,14 @@ static int pmu_event_add(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
>
> hwc->state = PERF_HES_UPTODATE | PERF_HES_STOPPED;
>
> if (mode & PERF_EF_START)
> __pmu_event_start(pmu, event);
>
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
>
> return 0;
> }
So for these 4 {start,stop,add,del} you can drop the irqsave/irqrestore
thing as its guaranteed that IRQs will be disabled.
> + cpumask_clear(pmu->mask);
> + cpumask_clear(pmu->tmp_mask);
>
> for (i = 0; i < cores_per_cu; i++)
> + cpumask_set_cpu(i, pmu->mask);
>
> + cpumask_shift_left(pmu->mask, pmu->mask, cu * cores_per_cu);
Couldn't you simply use topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu) instead?
>
> static int power_cpu_init(int cpu)
> {
> + struct power_pmu *pmu = per_cpu(amd_power_pmu, cpu);
> + int i, cu;
>
> + if (pmu)
> + return 0;
>
> + cu = cpu / cores_per_cu;
>
> for (i = 0; i < cores_per_cu; i++)
> + cpumask_set_cpu(i, pmu->mask);
>
> + cpumask_shift_left(pmu->mask, pmu->mask, cu * cores_per_cu);
topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu) again?
>
> + if (!cpumask_and(pmu->tmp_mask, pmu->mask, &cpu_mask))
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_mask);
>
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int power_cpu_prepare(int cpu)
> {
> struct power_pmu *pmu = per_cpu(amd_power_pmu, cpu);
> int phys_id = topology_physical_package_id(cpu);
> + int ret = 0;
>
> if (pmu)
> return 0;
> @@ -391,7 +380,17 @@ static int power_cpu_prepare(int cpu)
> if (!pmu)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&pmu->mask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&pmu->tmp_mask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out1;
> + }
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_init(&pmu->lock);
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pmu->active_list);
>
> @@ -400,12 +399,21 @@ static int power_cpu_prepare(int cpu)
> per_cpu(amd_power_pmu, cpu) = pmu;
>
> return 0;
> +
> +out1:
> + free_cpumask_var(pmu->mask);
> +out:
> + kfree(pmu);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static void power_cpu_kfree(int cpu)
> {
> struct power_pmu *pmu = per_cpu(amd_power_pmu, cpu);
>
> + free_cpumask_var(pmu->mask);
> + free_cpumask_var(pmu->tmp_mask);
> kfree(pmu);
> }
Yes this should work I think.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists