[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180403134832.2cdae64uwuot6ryz@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:48:32 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp: introduce kick_active_cpus_sync()
Hi Yury,
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:11:08PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> +/*
> + * Flush I-cache if CPU is in extended quiescent state
> + */
This comment is misleading. An ISB doesn't touch the I-cache; it forces
a context synchronization event.
> + .macro isb_if_eqs
> +#ifndef CONFIG_TINY_RCU
> + bl rcu_is_watching
> + tst w0, #0xff
> + b.ne 1f
The TST+B.NE can be a CBNZ:
bl rcu_is_watching
cbnz x0, 1f
isb
1:
> + /* Pairs with aarch64_insn_patch_text for EQS CPUs. */
> + isb
> +1:
> +#endif
> + .endm
> +
> el0_sync_invalid:
> inv_entry 0, BAD_SYNC
> ENDPROC(el0_sync_invalid)
> @@ -840,8 +861,10 @@ el0_svc:
> mov wsc_nr, #__NR_syscalls
> el0_svc_naked: // compat entry point
> stp x0, xscno, [sp, #S_ORIG_X0] // save the original x0 and syscall number
> + isb_if_eqs
> enable_dbg_and_irq
> - ct_user_exit 1
> + ct_user_exit
I don't think this is safe. here we issue the ISB *before* exiting a
quiesecent state, so I think we can race with another CPU that calls
kick_all_active_cpus_sync, e.g.
CPU0 CPU1
ISB
patch_some_text()
kick_all_active_cpus_sync()
ct_user_exit
// not synchronized!
use_of_patched_text()
... and therefore the ISB has no effect, which could be disasterous.
I believe we need the ISB *after* we transition into a non-quiescent
state, so that we can't possibly miss a context synchronization event.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists