From: Fenghua Yu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <email@example.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <email@example.com>,
Borislav Petkov <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ingo Molnar <email@example.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <email@example.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, H Peter Anvin <email@example.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <email@example.com>,
"Li, Xiaoyao" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, x86 <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/bus_lock: Enable bus lock detection
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 20:35:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200729203557.GA318595@otcwcpicx6.sc.intel.com> (raw)
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 01:00:33PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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?
Sorry if I didn't explain bus lock and split lock detections clearly before.
There are two causes of bus locks:
1. a locked access across cache line boundary: this is split lock.
2. a locked access to non-WB memory.
BLD detects both causes and SLD only detects the first one, i.e. BLD can detect
both split lock AND lock to non-WB memory.
If sld=fatal and bld=ratelimit (both sld and bld are enabled in hw),
a split lock always generates #AC and kills the app and bld will never have
a chance to trigger #DB for split lock. So effectively the combination makes
the kernel to take two different actions after detecting a bus lock: if the
bus lock comes from a split lock, fatal (sld); if the bus lock comes from
lock to non-WB memory, ratelimit (bld). Seems this is not a useful combination
and is not what the user really wants to do because the user wants ratelimit
for BLD, right?
> > 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.
Similar here: bus lock from a split lock is fatal (sld triggers #AC) and
bus lock from lock to non-WB mem is warn (bld triggers #DB). Seems not what
the user really wants, right?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-29 20:36 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
2020-07-29 20:09 ` peterz
2020-07-29 20:35 ` Fenghua Yu [this message]
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
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).