From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755163AbbEURM6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 13:12:58 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]:33040 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751924AbbEURMz (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 May 2015 13:12:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150521170855.GB23652@pd.tnic>
References: <20150520114125.GA31212@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505201518050.4225@nanos>
 <20150520145122.GB10374@gmail.com> <20150520165558.24bf2483@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
 <20150520160702.GH3645@pd.tnic> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505202105110.4225@nanos>
 <20150520201553.GI3645@pd.tnic> <20150521145632.GC22642@hr-slim.amd.com>
 <20150521160223.GA23652@pd.tnic> <CALCETrUJAPHeyXgwUe_n+MGPK5pK2qZGhoFou2_8EufZ5u+0rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150521170855.GB23652@pd.tnic>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:12:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrW8XCARdMprfNgS9Y8=BdvDUxM6MESpE7AyfUt+dydE2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a
 configurable timer
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
        "Li, Tony" <Tony.Li@amd.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:45:10AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I must be missing something.  In this sequence, you're sleeping with
>> IF=0 and ECX[0] = 0, so an IRQ won't get handled.  Don't we want
>> ECX[0] = 1?
>
> Hmm, so actually we don't want to sleep with interrupts disabled. If
> ECX[0]=1b, then an interrupt will wake MWAIT. So then you have to do the
> loop thing as tglx suggested.
>
>> > The NMI argument is a problem though - if and NMI gets you out of
>> > MWAITX, a simple perf tool workload would kill all MWAITX executions.
>> > Which is bad. :-\
>>
>> I'm not sure it's a show-stopper.  NMI handlers are meant to be fast.
>> If an NMI comes in between rdtsc and mwaitx, then we oversleep, but by
>> at most the time it takes to handle an NMI, and nothing would have
>> stopped us from oversleeping that long if an NMI came in right after
>> mwaitx returned.
>
> Actually, I'm thinking about an NMI happening after we've issued MWAIT.
> NMIs wake it up. So you have the same problem as above:
>
> NMIs will wake MWAIT so you'd need to check how long you've slept and
> sleep for the remaining time. I.e., something like that thing from a
> couple of mails ago:
>
>         delay = usec_to_tsc(delay_usec);
>
>         if (delay > ((1 << 32) - 1)) {
>                 mdelay(delay_usec);
>                 return;
>         }
>
>         end = rdtsc() + delay;
>         while (1) {
>
>                 monitorx( ...); /* Do we need that here? */
>                 mwaitx(delay);
>
>                 /* possible wakeups */
>
>                 now = rdtsc();
>                 if (end <= now)
>                         break;
>                 delay = end - now;
>         }
>
>
> Yes, no?

Yes, but there should already be an adequate outer loop around the
whole thing.  After all, even regular mwait can have spurious wakeups
due to monitor monitoring the entire cache line.

--Andy