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 812BBC433F5 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 14:56:59 +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 39CC660F9E for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 14:56:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 39CC660F9E 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=AjGVxbzgsUylwW/i6JRqXxUkpC/JHaSgt/mGV6RSlIw=; b=Llg1Xgz/JLdkim 6c/caDJyXZ9Z0kL94OITU1XZZArATRrzZ2g4m0ZJm6iYTRb9bhZ+qYVv25ZljaK07Aj8vcpZXyiN3 9voCNGzoPZrX3QaJ3MmW+ik4F5vYDyd4P1Jh7qJ3/XIH1pU8aIMboEyuFnbfZFPf4ff5vZ2JMvTIo KqozXZvIHPNhyRAGaTXdFqCW5JVWABhAvqErQy6xVP4zwcQG3LhW9pWOFJGs6dRRus8K8X2MFxzE5 OxKOedf5kfNBg1g7XEbMVgNkw0vusRLajlpmE+bGR7ZGlINmU0qwMkKhTMre2HhV5g8+lhuxcxqrd ZqKs9WOjrH886jTMSlXA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mYrHK-003AMk-UG; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 14:55:19 +0000 Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mYrHH-003ALs-0d for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 14:55:16 +0000 Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id c4so6349496pls.6 for ; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 07:55:14 -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=GeF+0vI0rh9A/hx4bcDYc4RXHOiVVShtqRc/PviWzXU=; b=N6J9J+qLWBLLsJaDk3tMfpbAa+OFjdGd1vDN5Y1SYhj7EANs6y0rlijkYdUXJRWadN Cv7nSjYK270t5yxF4bR9RWISLSNAgSKw4Em+ae99Sx7ot58b4H63c6WW5E5qBa/A8XjD 6h9h4uZy7MkVRUW6HXobCGbuxMdiJx5Nts0Jtmr1eIwmHYFsHOBDam5V15goIsliFQw7 upXxUqWpinL1COoe0U+mQH5kPdKNrOhPRlonqaEq0O4k9Ke56UjQqc8ejO5xKQflmXkK /NgJQRpIVsQIGZ1P0k5lbvjLSwBre6XUccWi5KYP4aaeMMh0IjGCXL/HAfN5tJM4cE5/ dJTw== 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=GeF+0vI0rh9A/hx4bcDYc4RXHOiVVShtqRc/PviWzXU=; b=Vt5Elp2S9bC/2Ofnr6rNvKf5F0bk9LRmnbvuifyhQh44v5PqZr61EwERQZ31vjo9DS CqzbD+E+78igIl8LOmyiSG2AlLPJ8ZyONMAKSvNPwRwU1wcctpz/86G3M6R1vmycsIPD z/8ZQtknuY+cyLOd/br1PYV+ySl20RW6TSdBue5kgULlL5owzDk/ZtxlVV4RyCkuy4rv EJYajOS/q9x1U213wd2290jX0lwid0/PJm+NCz0pamgyH865+q3cnC+IMQZe6VL4m5cZ bbNautB4TfdlyAfjKI8QFgLxzQ1d1xn7yjjo32i36tN7l/y+0zxnLrmEFbDG7dVTQruQ plQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JyrevfODr8RLdtjN7sUmkqStOLzZRdJO9KeUNZKCPecHjWFoi FOUvy6qWXoFi4AKYonNUfQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFR3Hp6+pyTjGQQKwAXtAEoKIIySxOvS9HPjgJPE57kUHbXBVsAUui7HhZM5ZYkdcB7WcJFQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2303:b0:13f:e63:e27d with SMTP id d3-20020a170903230300b0013f0e63e27dmr6369513plh.84.1633704913761; Fri, 08 Oct 2021 07:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from piliu.users.ipa.redhat.com ([209.132.188.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4sm2556045pjb.21.2021.10.08.07.55.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 08 Oct 2021 07:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:55:04 +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: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211008_075515_095745_670AD53C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 48.60 ) 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 On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:01:25PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > 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(); > || } > || ... > ||} > Forget to supplement the context for understanding the case: On arm64, at present, a pNMI (akin to NMI) may call rcu_nmi_enter() without calling "__preempt_count_add(NMI_OFFSET + HARDIRQ_OFFSET);". As a result it can be mistaken as an normal interrupt in rcu_nmi_enter(). And this may cause the following issue: > 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