Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 2021 22:55:04 +0800 | From | Pingfan Liu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] arm64/entry-common: push the judgement of nmi ahead |
| |
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:01:25PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > Sorry that I missed this message and I am just back from a long > festival. > > Adding Paul for RCU guidance. > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 02:32:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 11:39:55PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:53:06PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:28:33PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > > > In enter_el1_irq_or_nmi(), it can be the case which NMI interrupts an > > > > > irq, which makes the condition !interrupts_enabled(regs) fail to detect > > > > > the NMI. This will cause a mistaken account for irq. > > > > > > > Sorry about the confusing word "account", it should be "lockdep/rcu/.." > > > > > > > Can you please explain this in more detail? It's not clear which > > > > specific case you mean when you say "NMI interrupts an irq", as that > > > > could mean a number of distinct scenarios. > > > > > > > > AFAICT, if we're in an IRQ handler (with NMIs unmasked), and an NMI > > > > causes a new exception we'll do the right thing. So either I'm missing a > > > > subtlety or you're describing a different scenario.. > > > > > > > > Note that the entry code is only trying to distinguish between: > > > > > > > > a) This exception is *definitely* an NMI (because regular interrupts > > > > were masked). > > > > > > > > b) This exception is *either* and IRQ or an NMI (and this *cannot* be > > > > distinguished until we acknowledge the interrupt), so we treat it as > > > > an IRQ for now. > > > > > > > b) is the aim. > > > > > > At the entry, enter_el1_irq_or_nmi() -> enter_from_kernel_mode()->rcu_irq_enter()/rcu_irq_enter_check_tick() etc. > > > While at irqchip level, gic_handle_irq()->gic_handle_nmi()->nmi_enter(), > > > which does not call rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(). So it is not proper to > > > "treat it as an IRQ for now" > > > > I'm struggling to understand the problem here. What is "not proper", and > > why? > > > > Do you think there's a correctness problem, or that we're doing more > > work than necessary? > > > I had thought it just did redundant accounting. But after revisiting RCU > code, I think it confronts a real bug. > > > If you could give a specific example of a problem, it would really help. > > > Refer to rcu_nmi_enter(), which can be called by > enter_from_kernel_mode(): > > ||noinstr void rcu_nmi_enter(void) > ||{ > || ... > || if (rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()) { > || > || if (!in_nmi()) > || rcu_dynticks_task_exit(); > || > || // RCU is not watching here ... > || rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit(); > || // ... but is watching here. > || > || if (!in_nmi()) { > || instrumentation_begin(); > || rcu_cleanup_after_idle(); > || instrumentation_end(); > || } > || > || instrumentation_begin(); > || // instrumentation for the noinstr rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs() > || instrument_atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)); > || // instrumentation for the noinstr rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() > || instrument_atomic_write(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)); > || > || incby = 1; > || } else if (!in_nmi()) { > || instrumentation_begin(); > || rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(); > || } else { > || instrumentation_begin(); > || } > || ... > ||} >
Forget to supplement the context for understanding the case: On arm64, at present, a pNMI (akin to NMI) may call rcu_nmi_enter() without calling "__preempt_count_add(NMI_OFFSET + HARDIRQ_OFFSET);". As a result it can be mistaken as an normal interrupt in rcu_nmi_enter().
And this may cause the following issue: > There is 3 pieces of code put under the > protection of if (!in_nmi()). At least the last one > "rcu_irq_enter_check_tick()" can trigger a hard lock up bug. Because it > is supposed to hold a spin lock with irqoff by > "raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rdp->mynode)", but pNMI can breach it. The same > scenario in rcu_nmi_exit()->rcu_prepare_for_idle(). > > As for the first two "if (!in_nmi())", I have no idea of why, except > breaching spin_lock_irq() by NMI. Hope Paul can give some guide. > > > Thanks, > > Pingfan > > > > I'm aware that we do more work than strictly necessary when we take a > > pNMI from a context with IRQs enabled, but that's how we'd intended this > > to work, as it's vastly simpler to manage the state that way. Unless > > there's a real problem with that approach I'd prefer to leave it as-is. > > > > Thanks, > > Mark. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
| |