public inbox for linux-um@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com, linux-um@lists.infradead.org
Cc: richard@nod.at
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] um: Enable preemption in UML
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 13:22:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <389fbd9de31ccdaad52674b7de06312e57f2cd54.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230922105609.545573-1-anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>

> 
> 4. UML TLB flush is also invoked during a fork. This happens
> with interrupts and preempt disabled which disagrees with the
> standard mm locking via rwsem. The mm lock for this code path
> had to be replaced with an rcu.

For the record, even if I figured out this gets rid of the complaints,
I'm not entirely happy with this - yeah it's safe now, but it still
feels entirely wrong.

But I guess we can also do this and then remove it entirely like the
patch I just posted. Order probably doesn't matter much.

(Note my patch removes the locking completely since it's now invoked by
the kernel even under write mmap lock.)

> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/fpu.c b/arch/um/kernel/fpu.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4817276b2a26
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/fpu.c

> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> +	if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT)))
> +		__builtin_ia32_xsaveopt64(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> +	else {
> +		if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVE)))
> +			__builtin_ia32_xsave64(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> +		else
> +			__builtin_ia32_fxsave64(&current->thread.fpu);

:)

OK, I'll stop mentioning it ;-)

> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernel_fpu_end);
> +

git am complained here about blank line at EOF

> @@ -597,8 +609,13 @@ void force_flush_all(void)
>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>  	VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
>  
> -	mmap_read_lock(mm);
> +	/* We use a RCU lock instead of a mm lock, because
> +	 * this can be invoked out of critical/atomic sections
> +	 * and that does not agree with the sleepable semantics
> +	 * of the standard semaphore based mm lock.
> +	 */
> +	rcu_read_lock();

Yeah I guess ... Seems like a very mechanical description of what's
going on, rather than a description of why this is correct (which
assumes no preempt and no SMP)?

I'd have preferred that, but with the patch I just posted we'll just
kill this entirely so it doesn't matter in the end.

johannes

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-09-22 11:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-22 10:56 [PATCH v6] um: Enable preemption in UML anton.ivanov
2023-09-22 10:56 ` Anton Ivanov
2023-09-22 11:22 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2023-09-22 11:55   ` Anton Ivanov
2023-09-22 20:40   ` Richard Weinberger
2023-09-22 11:59 ` Peter Lafreniere

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=389fbd9de31ccdaad52674b7de06312e57f2cd54.camel@sipsolutions.net \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com \
    --cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    /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