From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D390BC433EF for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 04:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97F0760EE3 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 04:03:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 97F0760EE3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=dqGK/nG7QQGJZs/MmWzuxus48ldK6j/sdOXfdMAC8+A=; b=02AB2azTfqTlzP IEigq6GFyOsa7uy1mkfh51Kb72kuqTHGD7JX+crlL2Fcoqij+mDEZx6Bcy2KbFfR9OZva7K49mm4S u5tko/Zbaiqe7QdghsxN0qjndNwdQ3Q5jefLS3i7azr+8gfngKsjI+BSFpxpHjox9pEs6Y27oOChk Ssv2nV+P0QmZi1N39crOBd/4gEIIt5UXfDPWdSFN7rBTlJcSgR+XmIzRjC8BGtlwIE8feBNzhKGxH iIVn/zWRhtt3CRw5/VbeBWZaCiQz5gSvRL2ATbpA7hZm8b5qcaCb7z6Dl+Upop7JjFnIK4O96axy/ n9kJ7YTxcfrJ1+cRa16Q==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mYh4k-001WAk-GJ; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 04:01:38 +0000 Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mYh4g-001WA5-QU for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 04:01:36 +0000 Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id l6so5279484plh.9 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 21:01:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SomEx5XusWQ42Nf16wCBxoC4McfhQLMf756SsCxzDL4=; b=HnjR9oL3TUn8DsAAtidCku3sLXfqlwptYsgOtpvzTYG7dHQ2pJwALqZ5vSJuX6nPY2 TRDLCPPQpLYCxDmqL/d4YrdhhkAWixMIFeysWBTjkH4nDdFvOlZwc/fMWDZYXzvyxGOL Xc2FM8SCszjB/+XFgrUcCyfllgWBTtEJE9mj4hw1f5qiWEAmk392O+6f7pdk2RZX3UGY LlRv5PJViZLzVdEQdjBBeBn/VXYe8vXTRmMHDL5fDRknsQ7pg+IEB18x+fOH311hg+Bw K1ZOcTmH7PefwWXpB57pjCg6pGMqQA6FJbcK5zdzgHg5QC19nPA0z3sWp7WIAOP/J40+ w+vQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=SomEx5XusWQ42Nf16wCBxoC4McfhQLMf756SsCxzDL4=; b=kzh8P8WYfP3C7554ECDR2IGYiaisyuOSUqf8xulb7mURIfiTWF3A4YjEr5sxK6EKxh kRm690u5mUhVB/EEUSa19aYIsEzcpmBSsmcQdutTXJO5xgcxmQbAq7QUfxFD3gRvEyot iaKgqOltTjDNIl3wv1mnIfjB0SKNklEjA1o1ri90oRDWF579K+l4ltqaccKKxDmy+PhI DAYPjRwAheCkY0sWrAd8hJZSbxIJv3mCROgIToWjw3toglF369Z97r0i+TySy5f2JTq0 2VwDar1KY+dq6I9fcvFkWifxsHiHpEHC8G8f/FHE2RJ/D2VKLYMKpMoBQMIREqNNHoPn pF7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fXW4F6J2bqLxShufrJPW+dNm1uGTAdxc/mQBVCoZnRR6kn7W7 4fxQ5PnqR+tBJtmJ4T/yU8jbwT4Q7g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx59inE/oTwcAFKfp1STCMEIvfuXrdlIUmK2Y7J28TD1vn8K6RAOkYAzeKKZccdNKkPMWzycQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b711:b029:11e:6480:258a with SMTP id d17-20020a170902b711b029011e6480258amr7292479pls.41.1633665693085; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 21:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from piliu.users.ipa.redhat.com ([209.132.188.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 12sm832300pfz.133.2021.10.07.21.01.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 07 Oct 2021 21:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:01:25 +0800 From: Pingfan Liu To: Mark Rutland , "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Marc Zyngier , Joey Gouly , Sami Tolvanen , Julien Thierry , Thomas Gleixner , Yuichi Ito , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] arm64/entry-common: push the judgement of nmi ahead Message-ID: References: <20210924132837.45994-1-kernelfans@gmail.com> <20210924132837.45994-2-kernelfans@gmail.com> <20210924175306.GB42068@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> <20210930133257.GB18258@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210930133257.GB18258@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211007_210134_909542_F2DC0B3C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 42.32 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Sorry that I missed this message and I am just back from a long festival. Adding Paul for RCU guidance. On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:32:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 11:39:55PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:53:06PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:28:33PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > > In enter_el1_irq_or_nmi(), it can be the case which NMI interrupts an > > > > irq, which makes the condition !interrupts_enabled(regs) fail to detect > > > > the NMI. This will cause a mistaken account for irq. > > > > > Sorry about the confusing word "account", it should be "lockdep/rcu/.." > > > > > Can you please explain this in more detail? It's not clear which > > > specific case you mean when you say "NMI interrupts an irq", as that > > > could mean a number of distinct scenarios. > > > > > > AFAICT, if we're in an IRQ handler (with NMIs unmasked), and an NMI > > > causes a new exception we'll do the right thing. So either I'm missing a > > > subtlety or you're describing a different scenario.. > > > > > > Note that the entry code is only trying to distinguish between: > > > > > > a) This exception is *definitely* an NMI (because regular interrupts > > > were masked). > > > > > > b) This exception is *either* and IRQ or an NMI (and this *cannot* be > > > distinguished until we acknowledge the interrupt), so we treat it as > > > an IRQ for now. > > > > > b) is the aim. > > > > At the entry, enter_el1_irq_or_nmi() -> enter_from_kernel_mode()->rcu_irq_enter()/rcu_irq_enter_check_tick() etc. > > While at irqchip level, gic_handle_irq()->gic_handle_nmi()->nmi_enter(), > > which does not call rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(). So it is not proper to > > "treat it as an IRQ for now" > > I'm struggling to understand the problem here. What is "not proper", and > why? > > Do you think there's a correctness problem, or that we're doing more > work than necessary? > I had thought it just did redundant accounting. But after revisiting RCU code, I think it confronts a real bug. > If you could give a specific example of a problem, it would really help. > Refer to rcu_nmi_enter(), which can be called by enter_from_kernel_mode(): ||noinstr void rcu_nmi_enter(void) ||{ || ... || if (rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()) { || || if (!in_nmi()) || rcu_dynticks_task_exit(); || || // RCU is not watching here ... || rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit(); || // ... but is watching here. || || if (!in_nmi()) { || instrumentation_begin(); || rcu_cleanup_after_idle(); || instrumentation_end(); || } || || instrumentation_begin(); || // instrumentation for the noinstr rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs() || instrument_atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)); || // instrumentation for the noinstr rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() || instrument_atomic_write(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)); || || incby = 1; || } else if (!in_nmi()) { || instrumentation_begin(); || rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(); || } else { || instrumentation_begin(); || } || ... ||} There is 3 pieces of code put under the protection of if (!in_nmi()). At least the last one "rcu_irq_enter_check_tick()" can trigger a hard lock up bug. Because it is supposed to hold a spin lock with irqoff by "raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rdp->mynode)", but pNMI can breach it. The same scenario in rcu_nmi_exit()->rcu_prepare_for_idle(). As for the first two "if (!in_nmi())", I have no idea of why, except breaching spin_lock_irq() by NMI. Hope Paul can give some guide. Thanks, Pingfan > I'm aware that we do more work than strictly necessary when we take a > pNMI from a context with IRQs enabled, but that's how we'd intended this > to work, as it's vastly simpler to manage the state that way. Unless > there's a real problem with that approach I'd prefer to leave it as-is. > > Thanks, > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel