linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/86] Make the kernel preemptible

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]

Date:   Thu, 09 Nov 2023 14:36:17 -0800
From:   Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        paulmck@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, jon.grimm@....com,
        bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/86] Make the kernel preemptible


Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 04:34:41PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 01:56:46PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> >> What's broken:
>> >>  - ARCH_NO_PREEMPT (See patch-45 "preempt: ARCH_NO_PREEMPT only preempts
>> >>    lazily")
>> >>  - Non-x86 architectures. It's trivial to support other archs (only need
>> >>    to add TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY) but wanted to hold off until I got some
>> >>    comments on the series.
>> >>    (From some testing on arm64, didn't find any surprises.)
>> >
>> > When you say "testing on arm64, didn't find any surprises", I assume you mean
>> > with an additional patch adding TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY?
>>
>> Yeah. And, handling that in the user exit path.
>>
>> > Note that since arm64 doesn't use the generic entry code, that also requires
>> > changes to arm64_preempt_schedule_irq() in arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c, to
>> > handle TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY.
>>
>> So, the intent (which got muddied due to this overly large series)
>> was to delay handling TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY until we are about to
>> return to user.
>
> Ah, I missed that detail -- thanks for clarifying!
>
>> I think arm64_preempt_schedule_irq() should only handle TIF_NEED_RESCHED
>> and the _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY should be handled via _TIF_WORK_MASK
>> and do_notify_resume().
>
> Digging a bit more, I think that should still work.
>
> One slight clarification: arm64_preempt_schedule_irq() doesn't look at
> TIF_NEED_RESCHED today, as it relies on the scheduler IPI calling
> preempt_fold_need_resched() to propogate TIF_NEED_RESCHED into
> PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED. That should still work since this series makes
> preempt_fold_need_resched() check tif_need_resched(RESCHED_eager).
>
> I was a bit cnofused because in the generic entry code,
> irqentry_exit_cond_resched() explicitly checks for TIF_NEED_RESCHED, and I'm
> not sure why it does that rather than relying on the scheduler IPI as above.

Yeah I found that confusing as well. I suspect the reason is that not
all archs do the folding and we need the explicit check for those that
don't.


--
ankur