From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/entry: Move nmi entry/exit into common code
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:07:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201027070750.GM534324@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kmk6298.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 11:50:11PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22 2020 at 15:26, ira weiny wrote:
>
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> >
> > Lockdep state handling on NMI enter and exit is nothing specific to X86. It's
> > not any different on other architectures. Also the extra state type is not
> > necessary, irqentry_state_t can carry the necessary information as well.
> >
> > Move it to common code and extend irqentry_state_t to carry lockdep
> > state.
>
> This lacks something like:
>
> [ Ira: Made the states a union as they are mutually exclusive and added
> the missing kernel doc ]
Fair enough. done.
>
> Hrm.
>
> > #ifndef irqentry_state
> > typedef struct irqentry_state {
> > - bool exit_rcu;
> > + union {
> > + bool exit_rcu;
> > + bool lockdep;
> > + };
> > } irqentry_state_t;
> > #endif
>
> -E_NO_KERNELDOC
Adding: Paul McKenney
I'm happy to write something but I'm very unfamiliar with this code. So I'm
getting confused what exactly exit_rcu is flagging.
I can see that exit_rcu is a bad name for the state used in
irqentry_nmi_[enter|exit](). Furthermore, I see why 'lockdep' is a better
name. But similar lockdep handling is used in irqentry_exit() if exit_rcu is
true...
Given my limited knowledge; here is my proposed text:
/**
* struct irqentry_state - Opaque object for exception state storage
* @exit_rcu: Used exclusively in the irqentry_*() calls; tracks if the
* exception hit the idle task which requires special handling,
* including calling rcu_irq_exit(), when the exception exits.
* @lockdep: Used exclusively in the irqentry_nmi_*() calls; ensures lockdep
* tracking is maintained if hardirqs were already enabled
*
* This opaque object is filled in by the irqentry_*_enter() functions and
* should be passed back into the corresponding irqentry_*_exit() functions
* when the exception is complete.
*
* Callers of irqentry_*_[enter|exit]() should consider this structure opaque
* and all members private. Descriptions of the members are provided to aid in
* the maintenance of the irqentry_*() functions.
*/
Perhaps Paul can enlighten me on how exit_rcu is used beyond just flagging a
call to rcu_irq_exit()?
Why do we call lockdep_hardirqs_off() only when in the idle task? That implies
that regs_irqs_disabled() can only be false if we were in the idle task to
match up the lockdep on/off calls. This does not make sense to me because why
do we need the extra check for exit_rcu? I'm still trying to understand when
regs_irqs_disabled() is false.
} else if (!regs_irqs_disabled(regs)) {
...
} else {
/*
* IRQ flags state is correct already. Just tell RCU if it
* was not watching on entry.
*/
if (state.exit_rcu)
rcu_irq_exit();
}
Also, the comment in irqentry_enter() refers to irq_enter_from_user_mode() which
does not seem to exist anymore. So I'm not sure what careful sequence it is
referring to.
/*
* If RCU is not watching then the same careful
* sequence vs. lockdep and tracing is required
* as in irq_enter_from_user_mode().
*/
?
Ira
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-27 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-22 22:26 [PATCH 00/10] PKS: Add Protection Keys Supervisor (PKS) support ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 01/10] x86/pkeys: Create pkeys_common.h ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 02/10] x86/fpu: Refactor arch_set_user_pkey_access() for PKS support ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 03/10] x86/pks: Enable Protection Keys Supervisor (PKS) ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 04/10] x86/pks: Preserve the PKRS MSR on context switch ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 05/10] x86/pks: Add PKS kernel API ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 06/10] x86/entry: Move nmi entry/exit into common code ira.weiny
2020-10-23 21:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-27 7:07 ` Ira Weiny [this message]
2020-10-27 14:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 07/10] x86/entry: Pass irqentry_state_t by reference ira.weiny
2020-10-23 21:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-27 7:11 ` Ira Weiny
2020-10-22 22:26 ` [PATCH 08/10] x86/entry: Preserve PKRS MSR across exceptions ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:27 ` [PATCH 09/10] x86/fault: Report the PKRS state on fault ira.weiny
2020-10-22 22:27 ` [PATCH 10/10] x86/pks: Add PKS test code ira.weiny
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201027070750.GM534324@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com \
--to=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox