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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:30:54 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] irqtime: Move irqtime entry accounting after irq
 offset incrementation

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 02:12:31PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 12/29/20 14:41, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > -void vtime_account_irq(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > > +void vtime_account_irq(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int offset)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	if (hardirq_count()) {
> > > > +	unsigned int pc = preempt_count() - offset;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (pc & HARDIRQ_OFFSET) {
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't this be HARDIRQ_MASK like above?
> > 
> > In the rare cases of nested hardirqs happening with broken drivers, Only the outer hardirq
> > does matter. All the time spent in the inner hardirqs is included in the outer
> > one.
> 
> Ah I see. The original code was doing hardirq_count(), which apparently wasn't
> right either.
> 
> Shouldn't it be pc == HARDIRQ_OFFSET then? All odd nest counts will trigger
> this otherwise, and IIUC we want this to trigger once on first entry only.

Right but we must also handle hardirqs interrupting either preempt disabled sections
or softirq servicing/disabled section.

3 stacking hardirqs should be rare enough that we don't really care. In the
worst case we are going to account the third IRQ seperately. Not a correctness
issue, just a rare unoptimized case.

> 
> Thanks
> 
> --
> Qais Yousef

Powered by blists - more mailing lists