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 54765C433EF for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:35:38 +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 76DAD6103C for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:35:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 76DAD6103C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.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 4HF7n400QXz2ywZ for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 05:35:36 +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=CO1obGp1; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=nathanl@linux.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=CO1obGp1; 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 4HF7m96RT1z2yLq for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 05:34:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 18MIAB8h009140 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:34:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=McbJgO9+e9KzA6O9XLwG4JBHBvUsKU2BLfEb6UzAwwY=; b=CO1obGp14N6r/A5itg6KLLOhxOy9DvpV876g1UlmfMNdLK82GL9+xw8k7ST1BUTCMqYT yApXQCZZybGOoadlUUmgIRfW64F99o88F6h46DCKk9c6ln7RdK5kZX6JzjSYFDwRKE8s F3KtZzOJegbmiROUIOjKjh4/Fy4MJwptBFMyjNV5E2BRrSbAdJwAwl6MwoVRbfVG7RCw BKRO+WBmnnDH7UJSSW5mggU+kBrwYvJdvJMZKT4qaHexhm5M0HiFFSLlFVZnI3Sb4K+p tINR67wsCq1Wplpae9S2/m87WB4KpvmCCrboRblUwJyXSZ3l7U6mwSkHDi6whAV6tVHs Ag== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3b823166sr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:34:45 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 18MIijkA000791 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:34:45 -0400 Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3b823166sg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:34:45 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 18MJS7vP002810; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:29:44 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.24]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3b7q6u3bsj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:29:44 +0000 Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.111]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 18MJThj843516342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:29:43 GMT Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E34EAC064; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:29:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DCEAC05B; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:29:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.211.63.177]) by b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:29:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: Srikar Dronamraju Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/paravirt: correct preempt debug splat in vcpu_is_preempted() In-Reply-To: <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> <20210922163351.GB2004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:29:42 -0500 Message-ID: <87bl4ko1cp.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: QsWdB_dvIutxym8Tr1gD6WuGDTR9om2j X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 3psLkFRjUUj_TrrM5rUeZC7q7psJWhss 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_07,2021-09-22_01,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=601 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109200000 definitions=main-2109220128 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: , 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" Srikar Dronamraju writes: > * 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? Sure, yes. > 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(). I do not think the utility of debug_smp_processor_id() is related to whether the arch defines __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()? So, for powerpc with DEBUG_PREEMPT unset, a call to smp_procesor_id() expands to __smp_processor_id() which expands to raw_smp_processor_id(), avoiding the preempt safety checks. This is working as intended. For powerpc with DEBUG_PREEMPT=y, a call to smp_processor_id() expands to the out of line call to debug_smp_processor_id(), which calls raw_smp_processor_id() and performs the checks, warning if called in an inappropriate context, as seen here. Also working as intended. AFAICT __smp_processor_id() is a performance/codegen-oriented hook, and not really related to the debug facility. Please see 9ed7d75b2f09d ("x86/percpu: Relax 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(). smp_processor_id() should always expand to debug_smp_processor_id() when DEBUG_PREEMPT=y, regardless of whether the arch overrides __smp_processor_id(). That is how I understand the intent of the code as written.