public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@google.com>,
	linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] arm64: Make EFI calls preemptible
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 12:44:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMvwstR28CDphk4J@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXGndZxxe+u3st6FCebrdutUibspA7tJUpqGMgpj9UTFnA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sept 2025 at 12:30, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> >
> > The arm64 port permits the use of the baseline FP/SIMD register file in
> > kernel mode, and no longer requires preemption to be disabled. Now that
> > the EFI spec is being clarified to state that EFI runtime services may
> > only use baseline FP/SIMD, the fact that EFI may code may use FP/SIMD
> > registers (while executing at the same privilege level as the kernel) is
> > no longer a reason to disable preemption when invoking them.
> >
> > This means that the only remaining reason for disabling preemption is
> > the fact that the active mm is swapped out and replaced with efi_mm in a
> > way that is hidden from the scheduler, and so scheduling is not
> > supported currently. However, given that virtually all (*) EFI runtime
> > calls are made from the efi_rts_wq workqueue, the efi_mm can simply be
> > loaded into the workqueue worker kthread while the call is in progress,
> > and this does not require preemption to be disabled.
> >
> > Note that this is only a partial solution in terms of RT guarantees,
> > given that the runtime services execute at the same privilege level as
> > the kernel, and can therefore disable interrupts (and therefore
> > preemption) directly. But it should prevent scheduling latency spikes
> > for EFI calls that simply take a long time to run to completion.
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > - Permit ordinary kernel mode FP/SIMD with IRQs disabled, so that the
> >   special EFI case only deals with invocations in hardirq or NMI context
> > - Disallow EFI runtime calls in hardirq or NMI context, so that the
> >   special FP/SIMD handling for EFI can be dropped entirely
> > - Use a mutex rather than a semaphore for the arm64 EFI runtime lock,
> >   now that it is never trylock()ed in IRQ or NMI context.
> >
> > Changes since v1/RFC:
> > - Disable uaccess for SWPAN before updating the preserved TTBR0 value
> > - Document why disabling migration is needed
> > - Rebase onto v6.17-rc1
> >
> > (*) only efi_reset_system() and EFI pstore invoke EFI runtime services
> >     without going through the workqueue, and the latter only when saving
> >     a kernel oops log to the EFI varstore
> >
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> >
> > Ard Biesheuvel (8):
> >   efi: Add missing static initializer for efi_mm::cpus_allowed_lock
> >   efi/runtime: Return success/failure from arch_efi_call_virt_setup()
> >   efi/runtime: Deal with arch_efi_call_virt_setup() returning failure
> 
> Unless anyone objects, I am going to queue up these 3 patches ^^^ via
> the EFI tree.
> 
> >   arm64/fpsimd: Permit kernel mode NEON with IRQs off
> >   arm64/fpsimd: Drop special handling for EFI runtime services
> >   arm64/efi: Use a mutex to protect the EFI stack and FP/SIMD state
> >   arm64/efi: Move uaccess en/disable out of efi_set_pgd()
> >   arm64/efi: Call EFI runtime services without disabling preemption
> >
> 
> ... so the rest can go in via the arm64 tree in the next cycle.

I'm also happy to take the whole lot via arm64 this cycle, if you like?
I reviewed it a while ago and was happy with it then.

Up to you.

Will


  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-18 11:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-18 10:30 [PATCH v3 0/8] arm64: Make EFI calls preemptible Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] efi: Add missing static initializer for efi_mm::cpus_allowed_lock Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] efi/runtime: Return success/failure from arch_efi_call_virt_setup() Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] efi/runtime: Deal with arch_efi_call_virt_setup() returning failure Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] arm64/fpsimd: Permit kernel mode NEON with IRQs off Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:33   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] arm64/fpsimd: Drop special handling for EFI runtime services Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 11:57   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 13:10   ` Mark Brown
2025-09-22  6:55     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] arm64/efi: Use a mutex to protect the EFI stack and FP/SIMD state Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:35   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-19 13:42     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 13:54       ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] arm64/efi: Move uaccess en/disable out of efi_set_pgd() Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:36   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] arm64/efi: Call EFI runtime services without disabling preemption Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:36   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 11:33 ` [PATCH v3 0/8] arm64: Make EFI calls preemptible Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 11:44   ` Will Deacon [this message]
2025-09-18 11:48     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:38   ` Will Deacon

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=aMvwstR28CDphk4J@willie-the-truck \
    --to=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=ardb+git@google.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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