Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:59:48 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel parameter |
| |
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:13:48AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:30:56PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:27:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > This all looks dubious on an HT system .... three snips > > from your patch: > > > > > +static bool __sld_msr_set(bool on) > > > +{ > > > + u64 test_ctrl_val; > > > + > > > + if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val)) > > > + return false; > > > + > > > + if (on) > > > + test_ctrl_val |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT; > > > + else > > > + test_ctrl_val &= ~MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT; > > > + > > > + if (wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val)) > > > + return false; > > > + > > > + return true; > > > +} > > > > > +void switch_sld(struct task_struct *prev) > > > +{ > > > + __sld_set_msr(true); > > > + clear_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_CLD); > > > +} > > > > > @@ -654,6 +654,9 @@ void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p) > > > /* Enforce MSR update to ensure consistent state */ > > > __speculation_ctrl_update(~tifn, tifn); > > > } > > > + > > > + if (tifp & _TIF_SLD) > > > + switch_sld(prev_p); > > > } > > > > Don't you have some horrible races between the two logical > > processors on the same core as they both try to set/clear the > > MSR that is shared at the core level? > > Yes and no. Yes, there will be races, but they won't be fatal in any way. > > - Only the split-lock bit is supported by the kernel, so there isn't a > risk of corrupting other bits as both threads will rewrite the current > hardware value. > > - Toggling of split-lock is only done in "warn" mode. Worst case > scenario of a race is that a misbehaving task will generate multiple > #AC exceptions on the same instruction. And this race will only occur > if both siblings are running tasks that generate split-lock #ACs, e.g. > a race where sibling threads are writing different values will only > occur if CPUx is disabling split-lock after an #AC and CPUy is > re-enabling split-lock after *its* previous task generated an #AC. > > - Transitioning between modes at runtime isn't supported and disabling > is tracked per task, so hardware will always reach a steady state that > matches the configured mode. I.e. split-lock is guaranteed to be > enabled in hardware once all _TIF_SLD threads have been scheduled out.
Just so, thanks for clarifying.
| |