linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	"Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/bus_lock: Enable bus lock detection
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:00:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200729200033.GJ27751@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200729194259.GA318576@otcwcpicx6.sc.intel.com>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 07:42:59PM +0000, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > Smushing the two into a single option is confusing, e.g. from the table
> > below it's not at all clear what will happen if sld=fatal, both features
> > are supported, and the kernel generates a split lock.
> > 
> > Given that both SLD (per-core, not architectural) and BLD (#DB recursion and
> > inverted DR6 flag) have warts, it would be very nice to enable/disable them
> > independently.  The lock to non-WB behavior for BLD may also be problematic,
> > e.g. maybe it turns out that fixing drivers to avoid locks to non-WB isn't
> > as straightforward as avoiding split locks.
> 
> But the two features are related if both of them are enabled in hardware:
> If a split lock happens, SLD will generate #AC before instruction execution
> and BLD will generate #DB after instruction execution.
> 
> The software needs to make them exclusive. The same kernel option reflects
> the relationship and make them exclusive, e.g. "fatal" enables SLD and
> disables BLD, "warn" does the other way.

Why do they need to be exclusive?  We've already established that BLD catches
things that SLD does not.  What's wrong with running sld=fatal and bld=ratelimit
so that split locks never happen and kill applications, and non-WB locks are
are ratelimited?

Sure, sld==warn with bld!=off is a bit silly, but the kernel can easily handle
that particular case.

> If using two different kernel options, the user needs to give right options
> to make both work, e.g. can the user give this combination
> "split_lock_detect=fatal bus_lock_detect=warn"? What does the combination
> mean?

Split locks are fatal, non-WB locks are logged but not fatal.

> There could be many combinations of the two options, some of them
> are meaningful and some of them aren't. Maintaining the combinations is
> unnecessary complex, right?

Honestly, it seems less complex than deciphering the resulting behavior from
that table.

  sld=off|warn|fatal
  bld=off|warn|ratelimit

As above, sld then could become

  if (sld == warn && bld != off) {
          pr_warn("disabling SLD in favor of BLD\n");
          sld = off;
  }

Everything else should simply work.  The necessary refactoring for SLD should
be minimial as well.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-29 20:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-17 21:35 [PATCH RFC] x86/bus_lock: Enable bus lock detection Fenghua Yu
2020-07-29  3:02 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-07-29  8:50   ` peterz
2020-07-29 18:09   ` Yu, Fenghua
2020-07-29 18:46     ` Sean Christopherson
2020-07-29 19:42       ` Fenghua Yu
2020-07-29 20:00         ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2020-07-29 20:09           ` peterz
2020-07-29 20:35           ` Fenghua Yu
2020-07-29 20:39             ` Sean Christopherson
2020-07-29 22:07               ` Fenghua Yu
2020-07-29 23:28                 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-07-29  8:49 ` peterz
2020-07-29 20:40   ` Fenghua Yu
2020-07-29 21:09     ` peterz
2020-07-30 10:08       ` Thomas Gleixner

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=20200729200033.GJ27751@linux.intel.com \
    --to=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.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).