Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:09 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 04:41:38PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:20 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 04:02:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:36 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 06:41:31AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 9, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 09:24:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:02 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 03:50:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:10 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disabled
> > > > > > >>>>> on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> By default, C0.2 is enabled and the user wait instructions result in
> > > > > > >>>>> lower power consumption with slower wakeup time.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> But in real time systems which require faster wakeup time although power
> > > > > > >>>>> savings could be smaller, the administrator needs to disable C0.2 and all
> > > > > > >>>>> C0.2 requests from user applications revert to C0.1.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> A sysfs interface "/sys/devices/system/cpu/umwait_control/enable_c02" is
> > > > > > >>>>> created to allow the administrator to control C0.2 state during run time.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> This looks better than the previous version.  I think the locking is
> > > > > > >>>> still rather confused.  You have a mutex that you hold while changing
> > > > > > >>>> the value, which is entirely reasonable.  But, of the code paths that
> > > > > > >>>> write the MSR, only one takes the mutex.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I think you should consider making a function that just does:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached), 0);
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> and using it in all the places that update the MSR.  The only thing
> > > > > > >>>> that should need the lock is the sysfs code to avoid accidentally
> > > > > > >>>> corrupting the value, but that code should also use WRITE_ONCE to do
> > > > > > >>>> its update.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Based on the comment, the illustrative CPU online and enable_c02 store
> > > > > > >>> functions would be:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> umwait_cpu_online()
> > > > > > >>> {
> > > > > > >>>        wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached), 0);
> > > > > > >>>        return 0;
> > > > > > >>> }
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> enable_c02_store()
> > > > > > >>> {
> > > > > > >>>       mutex_lock(&umwait_lock);
> > > > > > >>>       umwait_control_c02 = (u32)!c02_enabled;
> > > > > > >>>       WRITE_ONCE(umwait_control_cached, 2 | get_umwait_control_max_time());
> > > > > > >>>       on_each_cpu(umwait_control_msr_update, NULL, 1);
> > > > > > >>>       mutex_unlock(&umwait_lock);
> > > > > > >>> }
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Then suppose umwait_control_cached = 100000 initially and only CPU0 is
> > > > > > >>> running. Admin change bit 0 in MSR from 0 to 1 to disable C0.2 and is
> > > > > > >>> onlining CPU1 in the same time:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> 1. On CPU1, read umwait_control_cached to eax as 100000 in
> > > > > > >>> umwait_cpu_online()
> > > > > > >>> 2. On CPU0, write 100001 to umwait_control_cached in enable_c02_store()
> > > > > > >>> 3. On CPU1, wrmsr with eax=100000 in umwaint_cpu_online()
> > > > > > >>> 4. On CPU0, wrmsr with 100001 in enabled_c02_store()
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> The result is CPU0 and CPU1 have different MSR values.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yes, but only transiently, because you didn't finish your example.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Step 5: enable_c02_store() does on_each_cpu(), and CPU 1 gets updated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no sync on wrmsr on CPU0 and CPU1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by sync?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So a better sequence to
> > > > > > > describe the problem is changing the order of wrmsr:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. On CPU1, read umwait_control_cached to eax as 100000 in
> > > > > > > umwait_cpu_online()
> > > > > > > 2. On CPU0, write 100001 to umwait_control_cached in enable_c02_store()
> > > > > > > 3. On CPU0, wrmsr with 100001 in on_each_cpu() in enabled_c02_store()
> > > > > > > 4. On CPU1, wrmsr with eax=100000 in umwaint_cpu_online()
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So CPU1 and CPU0 have different MSR values. This won't be transient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are still ignoring the wrmsr on CPU1 due to on_each_cpu().
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Initially umwait_control_cached is 100000 and CPU0 is online while CPU1
> > > > > is going to be online:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. On CPU1, cpu_online_mask=0x3 in start_secondary()
> > > > > 2. On CPU1, read umwait_control_cached to eax as 100000 in umwait_cpu_online()
> > > > > 3. On CPU0, write 100001 to umwait_control_cached in enable_c02_store()
> > > > > 4. On CPU0, execute one_each_cpu() in enabled_c02_store():
> > > > >     wrmsr with 100001 on CPU0
> > > > >     wrmsr with 100001 on CPU1
> > > > > 5. On CPU1, wrmsr with eax=100000 in umwaint_cpu_online()
> > > > >
> > > > > So the MSR is 100000 on CPU1 and 100001 on CPU0. The MSRs are different on
> > > > > the CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this a right sequence to demonstrate locking issue without the mutex
> > > > > locking?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough.  I would fix it differently, though:
> > > >
> > > > static void update_this_cpu_umwait_msr(void)
> > > > {
> > > >   WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());  /* or local_irq_save() */
> > > >
> > > >   /* We need to prevent umwait_control from being changed *and*
> > > > completing its WRMSR between our read and our WRMSR.  By turning IRQs
> > > > off here, we ensure that no sysfs write happens on this CPU and we
> > > > also make sure that any concurrent sysfs write from a different CPU
> > > > will not finish updating us via IPI until we're done. */
> > > >   wrmsrl(MSR_..., READ_ONCE(umwait_control), 0);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > If no other objections, then I will keep the current mutex lock/unlock to
> > > protect wrmsr and the umwait_control_cached variable.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think that's sufficient.  In your current code, you hold the
> > mutex in some places and not in others, and there's no explanation.
>
> The mutex is used in sysfs writing and cpu online.
>
> But it's not used in syscore resume because only BP is running syscore
> resume.
>
> > And I think you're relying on the IRQs-off protection in at least one
> > code path already, so you're not gaining any simplicity.
>
> I don't rely on IRQs-off protection. I only use mutex to protect.

You're relying on being single-threaded in umwait_syscore_resume().
Do you actually know that's safe?  You say it's because you're single
threaded, but what if you were suspended in the middle of a sysfs
operation?  I think it's fine, but it needs an argument along the
lines of the argument for why the irqs disabled case is okay.

>
> > At the very
> > least, you need to add some extensive comments everywhere if you want
> > to keep the mutex,
>
> I have comment on why no need for mutex protection in syscore resume. But
> I can add more comments on the locking.
>
> > but I think it's simpler and clearer if you just
> > use the same logic everywhere, for example, as I proposed above.
>
> But using irqs_disabled() before wrmsr() and READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE for
> umwait_control_cached alone are not sufficient. The mutex is still needed
> to protect sysfs writing, is that right? Without mutex, one_each_cpu()
> can write different values on CPUs, right?

Yes, you probably need a mutex to prevent two sysfs writers from
clobbering each other.

>
> If irqs disabling, READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE, and mutex are all used to protect,
> isn't that more complex than just using mutex?

But you're already using a mutex and a comment.  And you're hoping
that the syscore resume callback reads something sensible despite the
lack of READ_ONCE / WRITE_ONCE.  The compiler is unlikely to butcher
this too badly, but still.

--Andy