From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@elte.hu,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, suresh@aristanetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86, xsave: remove thread_has_fpu() bug check in __sanitize_i387_state()
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:36:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120510163647.GA20106@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1336598317.4634.34.camel@sbsiddha-desk.sc.intel.com>
On 05/09, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 22:30 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/08, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > >
> > > BUG_ON() in __sanitize_i387_state() is checking that the fpu state
> > > is not live any more. But for preempt kernels, task can be scheduled
> > > out and in at any place and the preload_fpu logic during context switch
> > > can make the fpu registers live again.
> >
> > And? Do you see any particular scenario when this BUG_ON() is wrong?
> >
> > Afaics, __sanitize_i387_state() should not be called if the task can
> > be scheduled in with ->fpu_counter != 0.
>
> It is not easy, that is why we haven't seen any issues for so long. I
> can give an example with 64-bit kernel with preempt enabled.
>
> Task-A which uses fpu frequently and as such you will find its
> fpu_counter mostly non-zero. During its time slice, kernel used fpu by
> doing kernel_fpu_begin/kernel_fpu_end(). After this, in the same
> scheduling slice, task-A got a signal to handle. Then during the signal
> setup path we got preempted when we are just before the
> sanitize_i387_state() call in
> arch/x86/kernel/xsave.c:save_i387_xstate(). And when we come back we
> will have the fpu registers live that can hit the bug_on.
Indeed. Thanks a lot for your explanation.
> I am planning to remove this 64-bit specific signal handling
> optimization and share the same signal handling code between 32bit/64bit
> kernels (infact someone posted those patches before and I am planning to
> dust them off soon and repost).
Cool ;)
> > > Similarly during core dump, thread dumping the core can schedule out
> > > and in for page-allocations etc in non-preempt case.
> >
> > Again, can't understand. The core-dumping thread does init_fpu()
> > before it calls sanitize_i387_state().
>
> Here I actually meant other threads context-switching in and out, while
> the main thread dumps the core.
I see, thanks.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-10 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-07 19:07 [PATCH 1/2] coredump: flush the fpu exit state for proper multi-threaded core dump Suresh Siddha
2012-05-07 19:07 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86, xsave: remove thread_has_fpu() bug check in __sanitize_i387_state() Suresh Siddha
2012-05-07 19:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] coredump: flush the fpu exit state for proper multi-threaded core dump Linus Torvalds
2012-05-07 20:09 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-08 23:18 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-08 23:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] " Suresh Siddha
2012-05-09 21:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-09 21:32 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-10 16:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-10 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-05-10 23:33 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] fork: move the real prepare_to_copy() users to arch_dup_task_struct() Suresh Siddha
2012-05-10 23:33 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] coredump: ensure the fpu state is flushed for proper multi-threaded core dump Suresh Siddha
2012-05-11 16:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-11 19:05 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-13 16:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-15 18:03 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-15 18:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-17 0:17 ` [tip:x86/fpu] " tip-bot for Suresh Siddha
2012-05-10 23:33 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] x86, xsave: remove thread_has_fpu() bug check in __sanitize_i387_state() Suresh Siddha
2012-05-17 0:18 ` [tip:x86/fpu] " tip-bot for Suresh Siddha
2012-05-10 23:33 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] x86, fpu: drop the fpu state during thread exit Suresh Siddha
2012-05-17 0:19 ` [tip:x86/fpu] " tip-bot for Suresh Siddha
2012-05-11 0:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] fork: move the real prepare_to_copy() users to arch_dup_task_struct() Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-05-17 0:16 ` [tip:x86/fpu] " tip-bot for Suresh Siddha
2012-05-10 23:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] coredump: flush the fpu exit state for proper multi-threaded core dump Suresh Siddha
2012-05-08 23:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86, xsave: remove thread_has_fpu() bug check in __sanitize_i387_state() Suresh Siddha
2012-05-09 20:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-05-09 21:18 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-10 16:36 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-05-08 23:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86, fpu: clear the fpu state during thread exit Suresh Siddha
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=20120510163647.GA20106@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=suresh@aristanetworks.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).