From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
Dan Rue <dan.rue@linaro.org>, Matt Hart <matthew.hart@linaro.org>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>,
Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: debug: Remove rcu_read_lock from debug exception
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:20:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190718092022.GA3625@blommer> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190718062215.GG14271@linux.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:22:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 02:43:58PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Remove rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() from debug exception
> > handlers since the software breakpoint can be hit on idle task.
Why precisely do we need to elide these? Are we seeing warnings today?
> The exception entry and exit use irq_enter() and irq_exit(), in this
> case, correct? Otherwise RCU will be ignoring this CPU.
This is missing today, which sounds like the underlying bug.
Thanks,
Mark.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Actually, we don't need it because those handlers run in exception
> > context where the interrupts are disabled. This means those are never
> > preempted.
> >
> > Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 14 ++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> > index f8719bd30850..48222a4760c2 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c
> > @@ -207,16 +207,16 @@ static int call_step_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
> >
> > list = user_mode(regs) ? &user_step_hook : &kernel_step_hook;
> >
> > - rcu_read_lock();
> > -
> > + /*
> > + * Since single-step exception disables interrupt, this function is
> > + * entirely not preemptible, and we can use rcu list safely here.
> > + */
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(hook, list, node) {
> > retval = hook->fn(regs, esr);
> > if (retval == DBG_HOOK_HANDLED)
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > -
> > return retval;
> > }
> > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(call_step_hook);
> > @@ -305,14 +305,16 @@ static int call_break_hook(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
> >
> > list = user_mode(regs) ? &user_break_hook : &kernel_break_hook;
> >
> > - rcu_read_lock();
> > + /*
> > + * Since brk exception disables interrupt, this function is
> > + * entirely not preemptible, and we can use rcu list safely here.
> > + */
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(hook, list, node) {
> > unsigned int comment = esr & ESR_ELx_BRK64_ISS_COMMENT_MASK;
> >
> > if ((comment & ~hook->mask) == hook->imm)
> > fn = hook->fn;
> > }
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > return fn ? fn(regs, esr) : DBG_HOOK_ERROR;
> > }
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-18 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-18 5:43 [PATCH 0/3] arm64: kprobes: Fix some bugs in arm64 kprobes Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-18 5:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm64: kprobes: Recover pstate.D in single-step exception handler Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-19 10:07 ` James Morse
2019-07-20 6:22 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-18 5:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64: unwind: Prohibit probing on return_address() Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-18 5:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64: debug: Remove rcu_read_lock from debug exception Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-18 6:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-07-18 9:20 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2019-07-18 14:31 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-19 8:42 ` James Morse
2019-07-20 7:32 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-21 1:50 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-19 9:59 ` Mark Rutland
2019-07-20 7:54 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-07-24 10:45 ` Mark Rutland
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=20190718092022.GA3625@blommer \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=anders.roxell@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dan.rue@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel.diaz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.hart@linaro.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=naresh.kamboju@linaro.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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 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).