linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Do not issue remote fences until smp is available

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: <mhng-76ad1ec7-7ad6-4223-9e6f-321ac56d6dee@palmer-ri-x1c9a>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:42:03 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     atishp@...shpatra.org
CC:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        anup@...infault.org, damien.lemoal@....com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, jszhang@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Do not issue remote fences until smp is available

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 12:26:05 PDT (-0700), atishp@...shpatra.org wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:12 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 04:19:29PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> > It is useless to issue remote fences if there is a single core
>> > available. It becomes a bottleneck for sbi based rfences where
>> > we will be making those ECALLs for no reason. Early code patching
>> > because of static calls end up in this path.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>
>>
>> Hey Atish,
>> This doesn't apply for me to either fixes or for-next. What branch does
>> it apply to?
>> Thanks,
>> Conor.
>>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/riscv/mm/cacheflush.c | 4 ++++
>> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/cacheflush.c b/arch/riscv/mm/cacheflush.c
>> > index f10cb47eac3a..7fafc8c26505 100644
>> > --- a/arch/riscv/mm/cacheflush.c
>> > +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/cacheflush.c
>> > @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ void flush_icache_all(void)
>> >  {
>> >       local_flush_icache_all();
>> >
>> > +     /* No need to issue remote fence if only 1 cpu is online */
>> > +     if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
>> > +             return;
>> > +
>> >       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_SBI) && !riscv_use_ipi_for_rfence())
>> >               sbi_remote_fence_i(NULL);
>> >       else
>> > --
>> > 2.34.1
>> >
>
> Sorry I forgot to specify the dependencies for this patch. This patch
> is based on Anup's IPI series [1] as
> I assumed the IPI series would go first. I can rebase on top of the
> master if required.
> However, the issue will manifest only after Jisheng's patch[2] which
> moved the sbi_init to earlier and introduced the
> static key in the paging_init path.
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20220820065446.389788-8-apatel@ventanamicro.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220716115059.3509-1-jszhang@kernel.org/

IMO we should just stop issuing the SBI remote fences at all, with the 
code to do IPI-based fences we're just adding complexity for the slow 
case.