From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FB1C32771 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 08:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A38D2071E for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 08:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="IsJnbR37" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727816AbgA0IEl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jan 2020 03:04:41 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:56192 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725955AbgA0IEl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jan 2020 03:04:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=sZi2zm/JG5duSVHmWzKHgCFXi+/oFyOvHLu50859iFY=; b=IsJnbR37rrQBmfGapoKQzAs8B lP8fZMtd+MpCUXtcjfgJ4WsqTrU8aPK190wIBC+PjaA0RUdmozBdJaB+gtKyneZVYJEUeaJS5I5oJ 2la0fN9AtW/MYO8DTP+ZScgFCeEflGf3yYV+fM0KPEX7oRtWrkOBnK0Br7ID5RiJtAZ/6IsSFXorv BzIstbZUTvymqYxbvD6yp5xqs5Xk84Z9yvKe+XW8qVlIXZQff5VzwmqZw1CHyDNKDHX6J6BZDmKxi m/ZAtGDsCEcaRqwu4p7HBWIX56ywDtwQEoR+vD1gzsLI8BYCOD44ywF7KuAViVkoFlRuDguW/lvom 7786r97fA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ivzNc-0004Qx-Or; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 08:04:21 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FF3A300F4B; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:02:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 41862203CF5D4; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:04:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:04:19 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Arvind Sankar , Thomas Gleixner , "Christopherson, Sean J" , Ingo Molnar , "Yu, Fenghua" , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , H Peter Anvin , "Raj, Ashok" , "Shankar, Ravi V" , linux-kernel , x86 Subject: Re: [PATCH v15] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel Message-ID: <20200127080419.GG14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20200122224245.GA2331824@rani.riverdale.lan> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F54887A@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> <20200123004507.GA2403906@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200123035359.GA23659@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> <20200123044514.GA2453000@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200123231652.GA4457@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> <87h80kmta4.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200125024727.GA32483@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> <20200125212524.GA538225@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200125215003.GB17914@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200125215003.GB17914@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 01:50:03PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 04:25:25PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:47:27PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > I did find something with a new test. Applications that hit a > > > split lock warn as expected. But if they sleep before they hit > > > a new split lock, we get another warning. This is may be because > > > I messed up when fixing a PeterZ typo in the untested patch. > > > But I think there may have been bigger problems. > > > > > > Context switch in V14 code did: > > > > > > if (tifp & _TIF_SLD) > > > switch_to_sld(prev_p); > > > > > > void switch_to_sld(struct task_struct *prev) > > > { > > > __sld_msr_set(true); > > > clear_tsk_thread_flag(prev, TIF_SLD); > > > } > > > > > > Which re-enables split lock checking for the next process to run. But > > > mysteriously clears the TIF_SLD bit on the previous task. > > > > Did Peter mean to disable it only for the current timeslice and > > re-enable it for the next time its scheduled? > > He's seen and commented on this thread since I made this comment. So Yeah, I sorta don't care either way :-) > I'll assume not. Things get really noisy on the console (even with > the rate limit) if split lock detection is re-enabled after a context > switch (my new test highlighted this!) Have you found any actual bad software ? The only way I could trigger was by explicitly writing a program to tickle it.