linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/30] x86/thread_info: define TIF_NEED_RESCHED

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:31:29 -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,
        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, jpoimboe@...nel.org, jgross@...e.com,
        andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, 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,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/30] x86/thread_info: define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY


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

> Hi Ankur,
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:55:41PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> Define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY which, with TIF_NEED_RESCHED provides the
>> scheduler with two kinds of rescheduling intent: TIF_NEED_RESCHED,
>> for the usual rescheduling at the next safe preemption point;
>> TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY expressing an intent to reschedule at some
>> time in the future while allowing the current task to run to
>> completion.
>>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87jzshhexi.ffs@tglx/
>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/Kconfig                   |  1 +
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h | 10 ++++++++--
>>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 5edec175b9bf..ab58558068a4 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ config X86
>>  	select HAVE_STATIC_CALL
>>  	select HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE		if HAVE_OBJTOOL
>>  	select HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL
>> +	select HAVE_PREEMPT_AUTO
>>  	select HAVE_RSEQ
>>  	select HAVE_RUST			if X86_64
>>  	select HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
>> index d63b02940747..88c1802185fc 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
>> @@ -81,8 +81,11 @@ struct thread_info {
>>  #define TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME	1	/* callback before returning to user */
>>  #define TIF_SIGPENDING		2	/* signal pending */
>>  #define TIF_NEED_RESCHED	3	/* rescheduling necessary */
>> -#define TIF_SINGLESTEP		4	/* reenable singlestep on user return*/
>> -#define TIF_SSBD		5	/* Speculative store bypass disable */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO
>> +#define TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY	4	/* Lazy rescheduling */
>> +#endif
>> +#define TIF_SINGLESTEP		5	/* reenable singlestep on user return*/
>> +#define TIF_SSBD		6	/* Speculative store bypass disable */
>
> It's a bit awkward/ugly to conditionally define the TIF_* bits in arch code,
> and we don't do that for other bits that are only used in some configurations
> (e.g. TIF_UPROBE). That's not just for aesthetics -- for example, on arm64 we
> try to keep the TIF_WORK_MASK bits contiguous, which is difficult if a bit in
> the middle doesn't exist in some configurations.

That's useful to know. And, I think you are right about the
ugliness of this.

> Is it painful to organise the common code so that arch code can define
> TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY regardless of whether CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO is selected?

So, the original reason I did it this way was because I wanted to have
zero performance impact on !CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO configurations whether
TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY was defined or not.
(I was doing some computation with TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY at that point.)

Eventually I changed that part of code but this stayed.

Anyway, this should be easy enough to fix with done #ifdefry.

Thanks for reviewing.

--
ankur