From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: [patch 00/12] cpu isolation: infra to block interference to select CPUs
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 15:49:11 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240206184911.248214633@redhat.com> (raw)
There are a number of codepaths in the kernel that interrupt
code execution in remote CPUs. A subset of such codepaths are
triggered from userspace and can therefore return errors.
Introduce a cpumask named "block interference", writable from userspace.
This cpumask (and associated helpers) can be used by code that executes
code on remote CPUs to optionally return an error.
Note: the word "interference" has been chosen since "interruption" is
often confused with "device interrupt".
To protect readers VS writers of this cpumask, SRCU protection is used.
What is proposed is to incrementally modify code that can return errors
in two ways:
1) Introduction of fail variants of the functions that generate
code execution on remote CPUs. This way the modified code should
look like:
idx = block_interf_srcu_read_lock();
ret = smp_call_function_single_fail(cpu, remote_fn, ...); (or stop_machine_fail)
block_interf_srcu_read_unlock(idx);
This is grep friendly (so one can search for smp_call_function_* variants)
and re-uses code.
2) Usage of block interference CPU mask helpers. For certain
users of smp_call_func_*, stop_machine_* functions it
is natural to check for block interference CPUs before
calling the functions for remote code execution.
For example if its not desirable to perform error handling at
smp_call_func_* time, or if performing the error handling requires
unjustified complexity. Then:
idx = block_interf_srcu_read_lock();
if target cpumask intersects with block interference cpumask {
block_interf_read_unlock();
return error
}
...
ret = smp_call_function_single / stop_machine() / ...
...
block_interf_srcu_read_unlock(idx);
Regarding housekeeping flags, it is usually the case that initialization might
require code execution on interference blocked CPUs (for example MTRR
initialization, resctrlfs initialization, MSR writes, ...). Therefore
tagging the CPUs after system initialization is necessary, which
is not possible with current housekeeping flags infrastructure.
This patchset converts a few callers for demonstration purposes.
Sending the second RFC to know whether folks have objections
(there were no objections to the first release), or have
better ideas.
next reply other threads:[~2024-02-06 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-06 18:49 Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 01/12] cpu isolation: basic block interference infrastructure Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 02/12] introduce smp_call_func_single_fail Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 03/12] Introduce _fail variants of stop_machine functions Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 04/12] clockevent unbind: use smp_call_func_single_fail Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-07 11:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-07 12:51 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-11 8:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-14 18:58 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 05/12] timekeeping_notify: use stop_machine_fail when appropriate Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-07 11:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-07 12:58 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-08 15:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-09 15:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-12 15:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 06/12] perf_event_open: check for block interference CPUs Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 07/12] mtrr_add_page/mtrr_del_page: " Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 08/12] arm64 kernel/topology: use smp_call_function_single_fail Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 09/12] AMD MCE: use smp_call_func_single_fail Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 10/12] x86/mce/inject.c: fail if target cpu is block interference Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 11/12] x86/resctrl: use smp_call_function_single_fail Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-12 15:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-14 18:59 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-06 18:49 ` [patch 12/12] x86/cacheinfo.c: check for block interference CPUs Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-07 12:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-02-07 13:10 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2024-02-07 13:16 ` Marcelo Tosatti
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=20240206184911.248214633@redhat.com \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=bristot@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=leobras@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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