Re: [RFC PATCH 22/32] x86/fred: FRED initialization code

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:55:31AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/12/2022 9:45 am, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 10:36:48PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
> >
> >> +	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_STKLVLS,
> >> +	       FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_DB,  1) |
> >> +	       FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_NMI, 2) |
> >> +	       FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_MC,  2) |
> >> +	       FRED_STKLVL(X86_TRAP_DF,  3));
> >> +
> >> +	/* The FRED equivalents to IST stacks... */
> >> +	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP1, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(DB));
> >> +	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP2, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(NMI));
> >> +	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FRED_RSP3, __this_cpu_ist_top_va(DF));
> > Not quite.. IIRC fred only switches to another stack when the level of
> > the exception is higher. Specifically, if we trigger #DB while inside
> > #NMI we will not switch to the #DB stack (since 1 < 2).
> 
> There needs to be a new stack for #DF, and just possibly one for #MC. 
> NMI and #DB do not need separate stacks under FRED.

True, there is very little need to use additional stacks with FRED.

> > Now, as mentioned elsewhere, it all nests a lot saner, but stack
> > exhaustion is still a thing, given the above, what happens when a #DB
> > hits an #NMI which tickles a #VE or something?
> >
> > I don't think we've increased the exception stack size, but perhaps we
> > should for FRED?
> 
> Not sure if it matters too much - it doesn't seem usefully different to
> IDT delivery.  #DB shouldn't get too deep, and NMI gets properly
> inhibited now.

Both #DB and #NMI can end up in perf, and all that goes quite deep :/