[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190110201217.GH2861@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:12:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SRINIVAS <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Question about qspinlock nest
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 06:25:57PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
> On arm64 if all the RAS and psuedo-NMI patches land, our worst-case interleaving
> jumps to at least 7. The culprit is APEI using spinlocks to protect fixmap slots.
>
> I have an RFC to bump the number of node bits from 2 to 3, but as this is APEI
> four times, it may be preferable to make it use something other than spinlocks.
>
>
> The worst-case order is below. Each one masks those before it:
> 1. process context
> 2. soft-irq
> 3. hard-irq
> 4. psuedo-nmi [0]
> - using the irqchip priorities to configure some IRQs as NMI.
> 5. SError [1]
> - a bit like an asynchronous MCE. ACPI allows this to convey CPER records,
> requiring an APEI call.
> 6&7. SDEI [2]
> - a firmware triggered software interrupt, only its two of them, either of
> which could convey CPER records.
> 8. Synchronous external abort
> - again, similar to MCE. There are systems using this with APEI.
The thing is, everything non-maskable (NMI like) really should not be
using spinlocks at all.
I otherwise have no clue about wth APEI is, but it sounds like horrible
crap ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists