From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54A5C433EF for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:34:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6EE760F3A for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:34:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org A6EE760F3A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HF3mW6mwDz2yn5 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:34:51 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=KeR6LnCY; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=KeR6LnCY; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HF3lb4r9tz2yP3 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:34:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 18MFVCvH010392 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:34:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=AgdUYsal7sJkhd6dph81Ck0eONPaurQVwqNBeXugRo0=; b=KeR6LnCYk2sPW/AZ2YS/+jA6mR11TU8YZL5btHwsziGkVUZqjIRFnONM7ocZAg+YW408 xL0IZmv4bRDqeOOxsklvvUL5f+U+IrJt7Ch9bxT7mdH3PCHZggt75mSR6O41vtTdE8m0 Ld96JUoK2kH91mMqCPoHUNQuIRdeot7ShhsATM9sbBEoHDUGigSqa6jLlL+6Nc55dWe6 lSR/Uudc5TGqFeNzLdF7KrB23k3qvczbu2WfRea9pjx517bTCRNbk9gErAc/Pu9nklbA fOjBTdkUMRGWLRBPYw4YN+zv1PRp639FWdMvc8+DvITOIVGr1Io9/KYnI6GKPgRvzIb6 wg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3b876psk28-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:33:59 -0400 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 18MFdllQ011062 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:33:59 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3b876psk1n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:33:59 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 18MGRw7F032174; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:33:57 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3b7q6ps631-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:33:56 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 18MGXsT566781498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:33:54 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D99AA4054; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:33:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C0CA405F; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:33:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:33:53 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 22:03:51 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/paravirt: correct preempt debug splat in vcpu_is_preempted() Message-ID: <20210922163351.GB2004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20210921031213.2029824-1-nathanl@linux.ibm.com> <20210922075718.GA2004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87ee9gob07.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ee9gob07.fsf@linux.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: aGptHBu72SSwnoxZx9xSAFg1P20b0yrx X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: T6o19Uw_vAQlFl9Nowy6g0sCzQM1pFRp X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.182.1,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.391,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-09-22_06,2021-09-22_01,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=789 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109200000 definitions=main-2109220112 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, npiggin@gmail.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" * Nathan Lynch [2021-09-22 11:01:12]: > Srikar Dronamraju writes: > > * Nathan Lynch [2021-09-20 22:12:13]: > > > >> vcpu_is_preempted() can be used outside of preempt-disabled critical > >> sections, yielding warnings such as: > >> > >> BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: systemd-udevd/185 > >> caller is rwsem_spin_on_owner+0x1cc/0x2d0 > >> CPU: 1 PID: 185 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.15.0-rc2+ #33 > >> Call Trace: > >> [c000000012907ac0] [c000000000aa30a8] dump_stack_lvl+0xac/0x108 (unreliable) > >> [c000000012907b00] [c000000001371f70] check_preemption_disabled+0x150/0x160 > >> [c000000012907b90] [c0000000001e0e8c] rwsem_spin_on_owner+0x1cc/0x2d0 > >> [c000000012907be0] [c0000000001e1408] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x478/0x9a0 > >> [c000000012907ca0] [c000000000576cf4] filename_create+0x94/0x1e0 > >> [c000000012907d10] [c00000000057ac08] do_symlinkat+0x68/0x1a0 > >> [c000000012907d70] [c00000000057ae18] sys_symlink+0x58/0x70 > >> [c000000012907da0] [c00000000002e448] system_call_exception+0x198/0x3c0 > >> [c000000012907e10] [c00000000000c54c] system_call_common+0xec/0x250 > >> > >> The result of vcpu_is_preempted() is always subject to invalidation by > >> events inside and outside of Linux; it's just a best guess at a point in > >> time. Use raw_smp_processor_id() to avoid such warnings. > > > > Typically smp_processor_id() and raw_smp_processor_id() except for the > > CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT. > > Sorry, I don't follow... I meant, Unless CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, smp_processor_id() is defined as raw_processor_id(). > > > In the CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT case, smp_processor_id() > > is actually debug_smp_processor_id(), which does all the checks. > > Yes, OK. > > > I believe these checks in debug_smp_processor_id() are only valid for x86 > > case (aka cases were they have __smp_processor_id() defined.) > > Hmm, I am under the impression that the checks in > debug_smp_processor_id() are valid regardless of whether the arch > overrides __smp_processor_id(). >From include/linux/smp.h /* * Allow the architecture to differentiate between a stable and unstable read. * For example, x86 uses an IRQ-safe asm-volatile read for the unstable but a * regular asm read for the stable. */ #ifndef __smp_processor_id #define __smp_processor_id(x) raw_smp_processor_id(x) #endif As far as I see, only x86 has a definition of __smp_processor_id. So for archs like Powerpc, __smp_processor_id(), is always defined as raw_smp_processor_id(). Right? I would think debug_smp_processor_id() would be useful if __smp_processor_id() is different from raw_smp_processor_id(). Do note debug_smp_processor_id() calls raw_smp_processor_id(). Or can I understand how debug_smp_processor_id() is useful if __smp_processor_id() is defined as raw_smp_processor_id()? > I think the stack trace here correctly identifies an incorrect use of > smp_processor_id(), and the call site needs to be changed. Do you > disagree? Yes the stack_trace shows that debug_smp_processor_id(). However what I want to understand is why should we even call debug_smp_processor_id(), when our __smp_processor_id() is defined as raw_smp_processor_id(). -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju