All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, longman@redhat.com,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, wangle6@huawei.com, xiaoqian9@huawei.com,
	shaolexi@huawei.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Add might_sleep() to down_*() family
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 10:42:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210831174222.GA1040808@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871r69ersb.ffs@tglx>

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 02:13:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31 2021 at 04:13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 10:12:15AM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
> >> Semaphore is sleeping lock. Add might_sleep() to down*() family
> >> (with exception of down_trylock()) to detect atomic context sleep.
> >> 
> >> Previously discussed with Peter Zijlstra, see link:
> >>  https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210806082320.GD22037@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>
> >> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> >
> > This patch results in the following traceback on all arm64 boots with
> > EFI BIOS.
> 
> That's what this change was supposed to catch :)
> 
> > The problem is only seen with CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT=y, and thus only on arm64.
> 
> The below should fix this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> ---
> Subject: drivers: base: cacheinfo: Get rid of DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION()
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 13:48:34 +0200
> 
> DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION() was usefel before the CPU hotplug rework
> to ensure that the cache related functions are called on the upcoming CPU
> because the notifier itself could run on any online CPU.
> 
> The hotplug state machine guarantees that the callbacks are invoked on the
> upcoming CPU. So there is no need to have this SMP function call
> obfuscation. That indirection was missed when the hotplug notifiers were
> converted.
> 
> This also solves the problem of ARM64 init_cache_level() invoking ACPI
> functions which take a semaphore in that context. That's invalid as SMP
> function calls run with interrupts disabled. Running it just from the
> callback in context of the CPU hotplug thread solves this.
>  
> Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Fixes: 8571890e1513 ("arm64: Add support for ACPI based firmware tables")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

The warning is no longer seen with this patch applied on top of
v5.14-1100-gb91db6a0b52e, and I don't see any new problems on riscv,
x86/x86_64, or mips.

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Thanks,
Guenter

> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c   |    7 ++-----
>  arch/mips/kernel/cacheinfo.c    |    7 ++-----
>  arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c   |    7 ++-----
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c |    7 ++-----
>  include/linux/cacheinfo.h       |   18 ------------------
>  5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinf
>  	this_leaf->type = type;
>  }
>  
> -static int __init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> +int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	unsigned int ctype, level, leaves, fw_level;
>  	struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static int __init_cache_level(unsigned i
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
> +int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	unsigned int level, idx;
>  	enum cache_type type;
> @@ -97,6 +97,3 @@ static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsig
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(init_cache_level)
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(populate_cache_leaves)
> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ do {								\
>  	leaf++;							\
>  } while (0)
>  
> -static int __init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> +int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpuinfo_mips *c = &current_cpu_data;
>  	struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
> @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ static void fill_cpumask_cluster(int cpu
>  			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu1, cpu_map);
>  }
>  
> -static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
> +int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpuinfo_mips *c = &current_cpu_data;
>  	struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
> @@ -114,6 +114,3 @@ static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsig
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(init_cache_level)
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(populate_cache_leaves)
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static void fill_cacheinfo(struct cachei
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static int __init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> +int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
>  	struct device_node *np = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu);
> @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static int __init_cache_level(unsigned i
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
> +int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
>  	struct cacheinfo *this_leaf = this_cpu_ci->info_list;
> @@ -187,6 +187,3 @@ static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsig
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(init_cache_level)
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(populate_cache_leaves)
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@ static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinf
>  	this_leaf->priv = base->nb;
>  }
>  
> -static int __init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> +int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
>  
> @@ -1014,7 +1014,7 @@ static void get_cache_id(int cpu, struct
>  	id4_regs->id = c->apicid >> index_msb;
>  }
>  
> -static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
> +int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	unsigned int idx, ret;
>  	struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
> @@ -1033,6 +1033,3 @@ static int __populate_cache_leaves(unsig
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(init_cache_level)
> -DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(populate_cache_leaves)
> --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> @@ -79,24 +79,6 @@ struct cpu_cacheinfo {
>  	bool cpu_map_populated;
>  };
>  
> -/*
> - * Helpers to make sure "func" is executed on the cpu whose cache
> - * attributes are being detected
> - */
> -#define DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION(func)			\
> -static inline void _##func(void *ret)				\
> -{								\
> -	int cpu = smp_processor_id();				\
> -	*(int *)ret = __##func(cpu);				\
> -}								\
> -								\
> -int func(unsigned int cpu)					\
> -{								\
> -	int ret;						\
> -	smp_call_function_single(cpu, _##func, &ret, true);	\
> -	return ret;						\
> -}
> -
>  struct cpu_cacheinfo *get_cpu_cacheinfo(unsigned int cpu);
>  int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
>  int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-08-31 17:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-09  2:12 [PATCH] semaphore: Add might_sleep() to down_*() family Xiaoming Ni
2021-08-09  3:01 ` Waiman Long
2021-08-09  3:51   ` Xiaoming Ni
2021-08-09 12:52     ` Waiman Long
2021-08-09 14:33       ` Xiaoming Ni
2021-08-13 17:27   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-13 18:47     ` Waiman Long
2021-08-13 14:43 ` Will Deacon
2021-08-23  9:39 ` [tip: locking/core] locking/semaphore: " tip-bot2 for Xiaoming Ni
2021-08-31 11:13 ` [PATCH] semaphore: " Guenter Roeck
2021-08-31 11:39   ` Hanjun Guo
2021-08-31 12:20     ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-31 11:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-08-31 12:13   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-31 12:34     ` Will Deacon
2021-08-31 17:42     ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2021-09-01  8:37     ` [tip: smp/urgent] drivers: base: cacheinfo: Get rid of DEFINE_SMP_CALL_CACHE_FUNCTION() tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner

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=20210831174222.GA1040808@roeck-us.net \
    --to=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nixiaoming@huawei.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=shaolexi@huawei.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wangle6@huawei.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=xiaoqian9@huawei.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.