[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9kq4rjo.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:19:55 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...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()
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:20 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Unless I've missed something, the effect here is that #PF hitting in
> an RCU-watching context will skip rcu_irq_enter(), whereas all IRQs
> (because you converted them) as well as other faults and traps will
> call rcu_irq_enter().
The only reason why this is needed for #PF is that a kernel mode #PF may
sleep. And of course you cannot sleep after calling rcu_irq_enter().
All other interrupts/traps/system vectors cannot sleep ever. So it's a
straight forward enter/exit.
> Once upon a time, we did this horrible thing where, on entry from user
> mode, we would turn on interrupts while still in CONTEXT_USER, which
> means we could get an IRQ in an extended quiescent state. This means
> that the IRQ code had to end the EQS so that IRQ handlers could use
> RCU. But I killed this a few years ago -- x86 Linux now has a rule
> that, if IF=1, we are *not* in an EQS with the sole exception of the
> idle code.
>
> In my dream world, we would never ever get IRQs while in an EQS -- we
> would do MWAIT with IF=0 and we would exit the EQS before taking the
> interrupt. But I guess we still need to support HLT, which means we
> have this mess.
You always can dream, but dont complain about the nightmares :)
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists