[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220510065457.GI76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 08:54:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: jolsa@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Folllowing up on LSF/MM RCU/idle discussion
On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 08:56:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello, Jiri!
>
> It was good chatting with you last week, and I hope that travels went
> well!
>
> Just wanted to follow up on the non-noinstr code between the call
> to rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit(). Although the most correct
> approach is to never have non-noinstr code in arch_cpu_idle(), for all I
> know there might well be architectures for which this is not feasible.
> If so, one workaround would be to supply a flag set by each arch (or
> subarch) that says that rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit() are invoked
> within arch_cpu_idle().
>
> CCing Peter, who just might have an opinion on this. ;-)
Definitely have an opinion; just lack the tools to enforce these rules.
I cleaned up the worst of it for x86 but it's a shit-show for most
others. ARM in particular has some 'issues'.
But yeah, noinstr only when you do rcu_idle_enter.
The problem with validating all this is that cpuidle is a rats nest of
indirect calls; in order to validate the noinstr'ness of something like
that we need compiler support for pointer address spaces such that we
can stick pointers to noinstr functions in a different address space and
get complaints etc..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists