From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:23:26 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Language: en-US 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+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org List-Archive: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" List-ID: On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed >>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() >>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is >>>> not this better ? >>> >>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>> >>> search for 'kprobes'. >>> >>> tell me what you think. >> >> Are you referring to these following commits >> >> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") >> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code") >> >> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context >> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective >> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it >> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible. >> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt >> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms, >> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around. > > Exactly. > > So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently > from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation > for all the architectures supporting kprobes? So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this. int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) { int ret = 0; /* * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. */ if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) ret = 1; } return ret; } _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel