[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVPM1x5v8Gq7xyF+QqxSWSWTShhc7K02nGJZuB-oVDxNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 09:51:17 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Jason Chen CJ <jason.cj.chen@...el.com>,
Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V6 12/37] x86/entry: Provide idtentry_entry/exit_cond_rcu()
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 7:23 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 05:26:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:20 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
First, the patch as you submitted it is Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>. I think there are cleanups that should happen, but
I think the patch is correct.
About cleanups, concretely: I think that everything that calls
__idtenter_entry() is called in one of a small number of relatively
sane states:
1. User mode. This is easy.
2. Kernel, RCU is watching, everything is sane. We don't actually
need to do any RCU entry/exit pairs -- we should be okay with just a
hypothetical RCU tickle (and IRQ tracing, etc). This variant can
sleep after the entry part finishes if regs->flags & IF and no one
turned off preemption.
3. Kernel, RCU is not watching, system was idle. This can only be an
actual interrupt.
So maybe the code can change to:
if (user_mode(regs)) {
enter_from_user_mode();
} else {
if (!__rcu_is_watching()) {
/*
* If RCU is not watching then the same careful
* sequence vs. lockdep and tracing is required.
*
* This only happens for IRQs that hit the idle loop, and
* even that only happens if we aren't using the sane
* MWAIT-while-IF=0 mode.
*/
lockdep_hardirqs_off(CALLER_ADDR0);
rcu_irq_enter();
instrumentation_begin();
trace_hardirqs_off_prepare();
instrumentation_end();
return true;
} else {
/*
* If RCU is watching then the combo function
* can be used.
*/
instrumentation_begin();
trace_hardirqs_off();
rcu_tickle();
instrumentation_end();
}
}
return false;
This is exactly what you have except that the cond_rcu part is gone
and I added rcu_tickle().
Paul, the major change here is that if an IRQ hits normal kernel code
(i.e. code where RCU is watching and we're not in an EQS), the IRQ
won't call rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit(). Instead it will call
rcu_tickle() on entry and nothing on exit. Does that cover all the
bases?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists