From: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
To: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
Cc: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix CONFIG_TLB_PTLOCK to work with lightweight spinlock checks
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 03:06:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v8di5qc6.fsf@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZNlOiJMddf15RaGj@p100>
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> writes:
> For the TLB_PTLOCK checks we used an optimization to store the spc
> register into the spinlock to unlock it. This optimization works as
> long as the lightweight spinlock checks (CONFIG_LIGHTWEIGHT_SPINLOCK_CHECK)
> aren't enabled, because they really check if the lock word is zero or
> __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED_VAL and abort with a kernel crash
> ("Spinlock was trashed") otherwise.
>
> Drop that optimization to make it possible to activate both checks
> at the same time.
>
> Noticed-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.4+
> Fixes: 15e64ef6520e ("parisc: Add lightweight spinlock checks")
Thanks! Works.
Tested-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
>
> ---
> v2:
> - missed to fix another unlock in previous patch
> - resend, because my mail provider decided to scramble my outgoing
> mails and drop tabs, so that the patches don't apply cleanly
> any longer.
>
> ---
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/entry.S b/arch/parisc/kernel/entry.S
> index 0e5ebfe8d9d2..8cd88a1bf588 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> #include <asm/traps.h>
> #include <asm/thread_info.h>
> #include <asm/alternative.h>
> +#include <asm/spinlock_types.h>
>
> #include <linux/linkage.h>
> #include <linux/pgtable.h>
> @@ -406,7 +407,7 @@
> LDREG 0(\ptp),\pte
> bb,<,n \pte,_PAGE_PRESENT_BIT,3f
> b \fault
> - stw \spc,0(\tmp)
> + stw \tmp1,0(\tmp) /* restore lock value */
> 99: ALTERNATIVE(98b, 99b, ALT_COND_NO_SMP, INSN_NOP)
> #endif
> 2: LDREG 0(\ptp),\pte
> @@ -415,24 +416,22 @@
> .endm
>
> /* Release page_table_lock without reloading lock address.
> - Note that the values in the register spc are limited to
> - NR_SPACE_IDS (262144). Thus, the stw instruction always
> - stores a nonzero value even when register spc is 64 bits.
> We use an ordered store to ensure all prior accesses are
> performed prior to releasing the lock. */
> - .macro ptl_unlock0 spc,tmp
> + .macro ptl_unlock0 spc,tmp,tmp2
> #ifdef CONFIG_TLB_PTLOCK
> -98: or,COND(=) %r0,\spc,%r0
> - stw,ma \spc,0(\tmp)
> +98: ldi __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED_VAL, \tmp2
> + or,COND(=) %r0,\spc,%r0
> + stw,ma \tmp2,0(\tmp)
> 99: ALTERNATIVE(98b, 99b, ALT_COND_NO_SMP, INSN_NOP)
> #endif
> .endm
>
> /* Release page_table_lock. */
> - .macro ptl_unlock1 spc,tmp
> + .macro ptl_unlock1 spc,tmp,tmp2
> #ifdef CONFIG_TLB_PTLOCK
> 98: get_ptl \tmp
> - ptl_unlock0 \spc,\tmp
> + ptl_unlock0 \spc,\tmp,\tmp2
> 99: ALTERNATIVE(98b, 99b, ALT_COND_NO_SMP, INSN_NOP)
> #endif
> .endm
> @@ -1125,7 +1124,7 @@ dtlb_miss_20w:
>
> idtlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1151,7 +1150,7 @@ nadtlb_miss_20w:
>
> idtlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1185,7 +1184,7 @@ dtlb_miss_11:
>
> mtsp t1, %sr1 /* Restore sr1 */
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1218,7 +1217,7 @@ nadtlb_miss_11:
>
> mtsp t1, %sr1 /* Restore sr1 */
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1247,7 +1246,7 @@ dtlb_miss_20:
>
> idtlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1275,7 +1274,7 @@ nadtlb_miss_20:
>
> idtlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1320,7 +1319,7 @@ itlb_miss_20w:
>
> iitlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1344,7 +1343,7 @@ naitlb_miss_20w:
>
> iitlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1378,7 +1377,7 @@ itlb_miss_11:
>
> mtsp t1, %sr1 /* Restore sr1 */
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1402,7 +1401,7 @@ naitlb_miss_11:
>
> mtsp t1, %sr1 /* Restore sr1 */
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1432,7 +1431,7 @@ itlb_miss_20:
>
> iitlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1452,7 +1451,7 @@ naitlb_miss_20:
>
> iitlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock1 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock1 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1482,7 +1481,7 @@ dbit_trap_20w:
>
> idtlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock0 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock0 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
> #else
> @@ -1508,7 +1507,7 @@ dbit_trap_11:
>
> mtsp t1, %sr1 /* Restore sr1 */
>
> - ptl_unlock0 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock0 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
>
> @@ -1528,7 +1527,7 @@ dbit_trap_20:
>
> idtlbt pte,prot
>
> - ptl_unlock0 spc,t0
> + ptl_unlock0 spc,t0,t1
> rfir
> nop
> #endif
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-14 2:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-13 21:43 [PATCH v2] Fix CONFIG_TLB_PTLOCK to work with lightweight spinlock checks Helge Deller
2023-08-14 2:06 ` Sam James [this message]
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=87v8di5qc6.fsf@gentoo.org \
--to=sam@gentoo.org \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.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