From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Maksim Davydov <davydov-max@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
den-plotnikov@yandex-team.ru, gpiccoli@igalia.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4] x86/split_lock: fix delayed detection enabling
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:44:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z73JRsuderQIW1HT@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250115131704.132609-1-davydov-max@yandex-team.ru>
* Maksim Davydov <davydov-max@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> If the warn mode with disabled mitigation mode is used, then on each
> CPU where the split lock occurred detection will be disabled in order to
> make progress and delayed work will be scheduled, which then will enable
> detection back. Now it turns out that all CPUs use one global delayed
> work structure. This leads to the fact that if a split lock occurs on
> several CPUs at the same time (within 2 jiffies), only one CPU will
> schedule delayed work, but the rest will not. The return value of
> schedule_delayed_work_on() would have shown this, but it is not checked
> in the code.
>
> A diagram that can help to understand the bug reproduction:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2cd54041-253b-4e78-b8ea-dbe9b884ff9b@yandex-team.ru/
>
> In order to fix the warn mode with disabled mitigation mode, delayed work
> has to be a per-CPU.
>
> v4 -> v3:
> * rebased the patch onto the latest master
>
> v3 -> v2:
> * place and time of the per-CPU structure initialization were changed.
> initcall doesn't seem to be a good place for it, so deferred
> initialization is used.
>
> Fixes: 727209376f49 ("x86/split_lock: Add sysctl to control the misery mode")
> Signed-off-by: Maksim Davydov <davydov-max@yandex-team.ru>
> Tested-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bus_lock.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bus_lock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bus_lock.c
> index 704e9241b964..b72235c8db3e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bus_lock.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bus_lock.c
> @@ -192,7 +192,13 @@ static void __split_lock_reenable(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> sld_update_msr(true);
> }
> -static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(sl_reenable, __split_lock_reenable);
> +/*
> + * In order for each CPU to schedule itself delayed work independently of the
> + * others, delayed work struct should be per-CPU. This is not required when
> + * sysctl_sld_mitigate is enabled because of the semaphore, that limits
> + * the number of simultaneously scheduled delayed works to 1.
> + */
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct delayed_work, sl_reenable);
>
> /*
> * If a CPU goes offline with pending delayed work to re-enable split lock
> @@ -213,7 +219,7 @@ static int splitlock_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>
> static void split_lock_warn(unsigned long ip)
> {
> - struct delayed_work *work;
> + struct delayed_work *work = NULL;
> int cpu;
>
> if (!current->reported_split_lock)
> @@ -235,11 +241,17 @@ static void split_lock_warn(unsigned long ip)
> if (down_interruptible(&buslock_sem) == -EINTR)
> return;
> work = &sl_reenable_unlock;
> - } else {
> - work = &sl_reenable;
> }
>
> cpu = get_cpu();
> +
> + if (!work) {
> + work = this_cpu_ptr(&sl_reenable);
> + /* Deferred initialization of per-CPU struct */
> + if (!work->work.func)
> + INIT_DELAYED_WORK(work, __split_lock_reenable);
The INIT_DELAYED_WORK() call shouldn't be done here, but in some sort
of init function. The control flow is complicated enough already.
Also, this_cpu_ptr() isn't necessary, we already have 'cpu' as the
current CPU. per_cpu() ought to be enough.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-25 13:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-15 13:17 [PATCH RESEND v4] x86/split_lock: fix delayed detection enabling Maksim Davydov
2025-02-25 13:44 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2025-03-18 20:29 ` Maksim Davydov
2025-03-06 12:08 ` [tip: locking/core] x86/split_lock: Fix the delayed detection logic tip-bot2 for Maksim Davydov
2025-03-07 12:09 ` tip-bot2 for Maksim Davydov
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=Z73JRsuderQIW1HT@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davydov-max@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=den-plotnikov@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=gpiccoli@igalia.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.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