[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10d23bbd-bc11-d5f4-4032-a814a8bd8dc1@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:30:41 -0700
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, <x86@...nel.org>
CC: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Gayatri Kammela" <gayatri.kammela@...el.com>,
Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Randy E Witt <randy.e.witt@...el.com>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/13] x86/process/64: Add uintr task context switch
support
On 9/23/2021 5:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 13:01, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>
>> User interrupt state is saved and restored using xstate supervisor
>> feature support. This includes the MSR state and the User Interrupt Flag
>> (UIF) value.
>>
>> During context switch update the UPID for a uintr task to reflect the
>> current state of the task; namely whether the task should receive
>> interrupt notifications and which cpu the task is currently running on.
>>
>> XSAVES clears the notification vector (UINV) in the MISC MSR to prevent
>> interrupts from being recognized in the UIRR MSR while the task is being
>> context switched. The UINV is restored back when the kernel does an
>> XRSTORS.
>>
>> However, this conflicts with the kernel's lazy restore optimization
>> which skips an XRSTORS if the kernel is scheduling the same user task
>> back and the underlying MSR state hasn't been modified. Special handling
>> is needed for a uintr task in the context switch path to keep using this
>> optimization.
> And this special handling is?
By special handling I meant programming the MSR when XRSTORS doesn't
happen on return to userspace. The pseudo code you provided in patch 5
comments handles this well.
>> + * cleared.
>> */
>> void save_fpregs_to_fpstate(struct fpu *fpu)
>> {
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> index ec0d836a13b1..62b82137db9c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
>> #include <asm/xen/hypervisor.h>
>> #include <asm/vdso.h>
>> #include <asm/resctrl.h>
>> +#include <asm/uintr.h>
>> #include <asm/unistd.h>
>> #include <asm/fsgsbase.h>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
>> @@ -565,6 +566,9 @@ __switch_to(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY) &&
>> this_cpu_read(hardirq_stack_inuse));
>>
>> + if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_UINTR))
> cpu_feature_enabled() please.
I'll fix this and the other issues that you mentioned.
>> + switch_uintr_prepare(prev_p);
>> +
>> if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD))
>> switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu);
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/uintr_core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/uintr_core.c
>> index 2c6042a6840a..7a29888050ad 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/uintr_core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/uintr_core.c
>> @@ -238,3 +238,78 @@ int do_uintr_register_handler(u64 handler)
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +
>> +/* Suppress notifications since this task is being context switched out */
>> +void switch_uintr_prepare(struct task_struct *prev)
>> +{
>> + struct uintr_upid *upid;
>> +
>> + if (is_uintr_receiver(prev)) {
>> + upid = prev->thread.ui_recv->upid_ctx->upid;
>> + set_bit(UPID_SN, (unsigned long *)&upid->nc.status);
> Please add a comment why this needs to be a locked instruction.
>
>
Ok, will do. The SN bit could be read concurrently on another CPU
executing SENDUIPI.
> Of course this is invoked unconditionally when the CPU has
> X86_FEATURE_UINTR:
>
>> + if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_UINTR))
>> + switch_uintr_return();
> Why?
>
> If the sequence is:
>
> syscall()
> do_stuff()
> return_to_user()
>
> then what on earth has modified that MSR state? Nothing at all, but you
> still run this code. What for?
>
>
The pseudo code in patch 5 covers this. I'll fix the code based on that.
Thanks,
Sohil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists