linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/preempt: add PREEMPT

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <20220203113453.GA471778@lothringen>
Date:   Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:34:53 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, ardb@...nel.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/preempt: add PREEMPT_DYNAMIC using static keys

On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:51:46AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 12:21:45AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > index 78c351e35fec..7710b6593c72 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > @@ -2008,7 +2008,7 @@ static inline int test_tsk_need_resched(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > >  #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPTION) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC)
> > >  extern int __cond_resched(void);
> > >  
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL)
> > >  
> > >  DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(cond_resched, __cond_resched);
> > >  
> > > @@ -2017,6 +2017,14 @@ static __always_inline int _cond_resched(void)
> > >  	return static_call_mod(cond_resched)();
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_KEY)
> > > +extern int dynamic_cond_resched(void);
> > > +
> > > +static __always_inline int _cond_resched(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	return dynamic_cond_resched();
> > 
> > So in the end this is creating an indirect call for every preemption entrypoint.
> 
> Huh? "indirect call" usually means a branch to a function pointer, and I don't
> think that's what you mean here. Do you just mean that we add a (direct)
> call+return?

Right, basic terminology and me...

> 
> This gets inlined, and will be just a direct call to dynamic_cond_resched().
> e,g. on arm64 this will be a single instruction:
> 
> 	bl	dynamic_cond_resched
> 
> ... and (as the commit message desribes) then the implementation of
> dynamic_cond_resched will be the same as the regular __cond_resched *but* the
> static key trampoline is inlined at the start, e.g.
> 
> | <dynamic_cond_resched>:
> |        bti     c
> |        b       <dynamic_cond_resched+0x10>
> |        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> |        ret
> |        mrs     x0, sp_el0
> |        ldr     x0, [x0, #8]
> |        cbnz    x0, <dynamic_cond_resched+0x8>
> |        paciasp
> |        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
> |        mov     x29, sp
> |        bl      <preempt_schedule_common>
> |        mov     w0, #0x1                        // #1
> |        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
> |        autiasp
> |        ret
> 
> ... compared to the regular form of the function:
> 
> | <__cond_resched>:
> |        bti     c
> |        mrs     x0, sp_el0
> |        ldr     x1, [x0, #8]
> |        cbz     x1, <__cond_resched+0x18>
> |        mov     w0, #0x0                        // #0
> |        ret
> |        paciasp
> |        stp     x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
> |        mov     x29, sp
> |        bl      <preempt_schedule_common>
> |        mov     w0, #0x1                        // #1
> |        ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
> |        autiasp
> |        ret

Who reads changelogs anyway? ;-)

Ok I didn't know about that. Is this a guaranteed behaviour everywhere?
Perhaps put a big fat comment below HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_KEY help to tell
about this expectation as I guess it depends on arch/compiler?

Thanks.