From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Liao, Chang" <liaochang1@huawei.com>
Cc: mhiramat@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
kan.liang@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention on siglock
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 19:25:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240806172529.GC20881@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0c69ef28-26d8-4b6e-fa78-2211a7b84eca@huawei.com>
On 08/06, Liao, Chang wrote:
>
> You're absolutely right. handle_signlestep() has chance to handle _DENY_SIGANL
> unless it followed by setting TIF_UPROBE in uprobe_deny_signal(). This means
> _DENY_SIGNAL is likey replaced during next uprobe single-stepping.
>
> I believe introducing _DENY_SIGNAL as the immediate state between UTASK_SSTEP
> and UTASK_SSTEP_ACK is still necessary. This allow uprobe_post_sstep_notifier()
> to correctly restore TIF_SIGPENDING upon the completion of single-step.
>
> A revised implementation would look like this:
Still looks "obviously wrong" to me... even the approach itself.
Perhaps I am wrong, yet another day when I can't even read emails on lkml
carefully, sorry.
But can you please send the patch which I could actually apply? This one
looks white-space damaged...
I'll try to reply with more details as soon I convince myself I fully
understand what does your patch actually do, but most probably not tomorrow.
Thanks,
Oleg.
> ------------------%<------------------
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1980,6 +1980,7 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
>
> if (task_sigpending(t)) {
> clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL;
>
> if (__fatal_signal_pending(t) || arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(t)) {
> utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED;
> @@ -2276,22 +2277,23 @@ static void handle_singlestep(struct uprobe_task *utask, struct pt_regs *regs)
> int err = 0;
>
> uprobe = utask->active_uprobe;
> - if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_ACK)
> + switch (utask->state) {
> + case UTASK_SSTEP_ACK:
> err = arch_uprobe_post_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
> - else if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED)
> + break;
> + case UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED:
> arch_uprobe_abort_xol(&uprobe->arch, regs);
> - else
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + break;
> + default:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + }
>
> put_uprobe(uprobe);
> utask->active_uprobe = NULL;
> utask->state = UTASK_RUNNING;
> xol_free_insn_slot(current);
>
> - spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> - recalc_sigpending(); /* see uprobe_deny_signal() */
> - spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> -
> if (unlikely(err)) {
> uprobe_warn(current, "execute the probed insn, sending SIGILL.");
> force_sig(SIGILL);
> @@ -2351,6 +2353,8 @@ int uprobe_post_sstep_notifier(struct pt_regs *regs)
> /* task is currently not uprobed */
> return 0;
>
> + if (utask->state == UTASK_SSTEP_DENY_SIGNAL)
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> utask->state = UTASK_SSTEP_ACK;
> set_thread_flag(TIF_UPROBE);
> return 1;
>
> ------------------>%------------------
>
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
> >
>
> --
> BR
> Liao, Chang
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-06 17:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-01 8:24 [PATCH] uprobes: Improve scalability by reducing the contention on siglock Liao Chang
2024-08-01 14:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-02 1:38 ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-02 9:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-06 3:06 ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-06 17:25 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2024-08-07 10:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-08 7:30 ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-08 10:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-08-08 12:31 ` Liao, Chang
2024-08-08 13:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20240806172529.GC20881@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=liaochang1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).