From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
paulmck@kernel.org, mtosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
frederic <frederic@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Fill the gaps about entry/noinstr constraints
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 19:14:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v9088a5q.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YadU1aSE6/0yGWny@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Mark,
On Wed, Dec 01 2021 at 10:56, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:31:30PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> ---
>> Documentation/core-api/entry.rst | 268 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Documentation/core-api/index.rst | 8 +
>> kernel/entry/common.c | 1
>
> I think the change to kernel/entry/common.c got included by accident?
That's what I get from doing such things 30 minutes before midnight...
>> +
>> +Syscall entry exit code starts obviously in low level architecture specific
>
> As a small nit, can we remove the "obviously"? It's certainly obvious to you
> and me, but it doesn't meaningfully affect the sentence either way.
Indeed.
>> +assembly code and calls out into C-code after establishing low level
>> +architecture specific state and stack frames. This low level code must not
>> +be instrumented. A typical syscall handling function invoked from low level
>> +assembly code looks like this::
>> +
>> + noinstr void do_syscall(struct pt_regs \*regs, int nr)
> ^^
>
> Is `\*` necessary here? ... and/or should this be an explicit code block (which
> IIUC doesn't require this esacping), e.g.
>
> .. code-block:: c
Right. Let me try that.
> noinstr void do_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, int nr)
>> +
>> +If the interrupt is raised while the CPU executes in kernel space the entry
>> +and exit handling is slightly different. RCU state is only updated when the
>> +interrupt was raised in context of the idle task because that's the only
>
> Since we have an idle task for each cpu, perhaps either:
>
> s/the idle task/an idle task/
> s/the idle task/the CPU's idle task/
Yes, that's more precise
>> +Note, that the update of the preemption counter has to be the first
>> +operation on enter and the last operation on exit. The reason is that both
>> +lockdep and RCU rely on in_nmi() returning true in this case. The
>> +preemption count modification in the NMI entry/exit case can obviously not
>> +be traced.
>
> Could we say "must not" instead of "can not", e.g.
>
> The preemption count modification in the NMI entry/exit must not be traced.
>
> That way it's clearly a requirement, rather than a limitation.
Yes.
>> +Architecture specific code looks like this::
>> +
>> + noinstr void do_nmi(struct pt_regs \*regs)
>> + {
>> + arch_nmi_enter(regs);
>> + state = irqentry_nmi_enter(regs);
>> +
>> + instrumentation_begin();
>> +
>> + invoke_nmi_handler(regs);
>> +
>> + instrumentation_end();
>> + irqentry_nmi_exit(regs);
>> + }
>
> To keep the begin/end and enter/exit calls visually balanced, should the
> instrumentation_end() call have trailing a line space, e.g.
Yup.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-01 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ 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 12:05 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-11-30 12:50 ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-30 13:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-30 14:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-11-30 22:31 ` [PATCH] Documentation: Fill the gaps about entry/noinstr constraints Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 10:56 ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-01 18:14 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-12-01 18:23 ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-01 20:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 20:35 ` [PATCH v2] " Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-02 10:03 ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-03 20:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-13 10:36 ` Nicolas Saenz Julienne
2021-12-13 16:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-04 3:48 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-12-06 17:36 ` Mark Rutland
2021-12-06 17:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-06 21:24 ` Randy Dunlap
2021-12-06 21:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-11-30 15:13 ` Question WRT early IRQ/NMI entry code 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=87v9088a5q.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--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 \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).