All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	mtosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, frederic <frederic@kernel.org>,
	paulmck@kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question WRT early IRQ/NMI entry code
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:50:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YaYeFu4hi3uVkhkN@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8719ad46cc29a2c5d7baac3c35770e5460ab8d5c.camel@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:28:41PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> Hi All,

Hi Nicolas,

> while going over the IRQ/NMI entry code I've found a small 'inconsistency':
> while in the IRQ entry path, we inform RCU of the context change *before*
> incrementing the preempt counter, the opposite happens for the NMI entry
> path. This applies to both arm64 and x86[1].

For arm64, the style was copied from the x86 code, and (AFAIK) I had no
particular reason for following either order other than consistency with x86.

> Actually, rcu_nmi_enter() — which is also the main RCU context switch function
> for the IRQ entry path — uses the preempt counter to verify it's not in NMI
> context. So it would make sense to assume all callers have the same updated
> view of the preempt count, which isn't true ATM.

I agree consistency would be nice, assuming there's no issue preventing us from
moving the IRQ preempt_count logic earlier.

It sounds like today the ordering is only *required* when entering an NMI, and
we already do the right thing there. Do you see a case where something would go
wrong (or would behave differently with the flipped ordering) for IRQ today?

> I'm sure there an obscure/non-obvious reason for this, right?

TBH I suspect this is mostly oversight / legacy, and likely something we can
tighten up.

Thanks,
Mark.

> 
> Thanks!
> Nicolas
> 
> [1] 
> IRQ path:
>   -> x86_64 asm (entry_64.S)
>   -> irqentry_enter() -> rcu_irq_enter() -> *rcu_nmi_enter()*
>   -> run_irq_on_irqstack_cond() -> irq_exit_rcu() -> *preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET)*
>   -> // Run IRQ...
> 
> NMI path:
>   -> x86_64 asm (entry_64.S)
>   -> irqentry_nmi_enter() -> __nmi_enter() -> *__preempt_count_add(NMI_OFFSET + HARDIRQ_OFFSET)*
>                           -> *rcu_nmi_enter()*
> 
> For arm64, see 'arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c'.
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	mtosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, frederic <frederic@kernel.org>,
	paulmck@kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question WRT early IRQ/NMI entry code
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:50:30 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YaYeFu4hi3uVkhkN@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8719ad46cc29a2c5d7baac3c35770e5460ab8d5c.camel@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:28:41PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> Hi All,

Hi Nicolas,

> while going over the IRQ/NMI entry code I've found a small 'inconsistency':
> while in the IRQ entry path, we inform RCU of the context change *before*
> incrementing the preempt counter, the opposite happens for the NMI entry
> path. This applies to both arm64 and x86[1].

For arm64, the style was copied from the x86 code, and (AFAIK) I had no
particular reason for following either order other than consistency with x86.

> Actually, rcu_nmi_enter() — which is also the main RCU context switch function
> for the IRQ entry path — uses the preempt counter to verify it's not in NMI
> context. So it would make sense to assume all callers have the same updated
> view of the preempt count, which isn't true ATM.

I agree consistency would be nice, assuming there's no issue preventing us from
moving the IRQ preempt_count logic earlier.

It sounds like today the ordering is only *required* when entering an NMI, and
we already do the right thing there. Do you see a case where something would go
wrong (or would behave differently with the flipped ordering) for IRQ today?

> I'm sure there an obscure/non-obvious reason for this, right?

TBH I suspect this is mostly oversight / legacy, and likely something we can
tighten up.

Thanks,
Mark.

> 
> Thanks!
> Nicolas
> 
> [1] 
> IRQ path:
>   -> x86_64 asm (entry_64.S)
>   -> irqentry_enter() -> rcu_irq_enter() -> *rcu_nmi_enter()*
>   -> run_irq_on_irqstack_cond() -> irq_exit_rcu() -> *preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET)*
>   -> // Run IRQ...
> 
> NMI path:
>   -> x86_64 asm (entry_64.S)
>   -> irqentry_nmi_enter() -> __nmi_enter() -> *__preempt_count_add(NMI_OFFSET + HARDIRQ_OFFSET)*
>                           -> *rcu_nmi_enter()*
> 
> For arm64, see 'arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c'.
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-11-30 12:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-30 11:28 Question WRT early IRQ/NMI entry code Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-11-30 11:28 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-11-30 12:05 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-11-30 12:05   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-11-30 12:50 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2021-11-30 12:50   ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 13:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-30 13:47   ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-30 14:13   ` Steven Rostedt
2021-11-30 14:13     ` Steven Rostedt
2021-11-30 22:31     ` [PATCH] Documentation: Fill the gaps about entry/noinstr constraints Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-30 22:31       ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 10:56       ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-01 10:56         ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-01 18:14         ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 18:14           ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 18:23           ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-01 18:23             ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-01 20:28             ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 20:28               ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 20:35               ` [PATCH v2] " Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 20:35                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-02 10:03                 ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-02 10:03                   ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-03 20:08                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-03 20:08                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-13 10:36                   ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-12-13 10:36                     ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-12-13 16:41                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-13 16:41                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-04  3:48                 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-12-04  3:48                   ` Randy Dunlap
2021-12-06 17:36                   ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-06 17:36                     ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-06 17:53                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-06 17:53                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-06 21:24                       ` Randy Dunlap
2021-12-06 21:24                         ` Randy Dunlap
2021-12-06 21:36                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-06 21:36                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-30 15:13   ` Question WRT early IRQ/NMI entry code Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-11-30 15:13     ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne

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=YaYeFu4hi3uVkhkN@FVFF77S0Q05N \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=nsaenzju@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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.