From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1759073AbcLPTXS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:23:18 -0500
Received: from mail-vk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44]:35266 "EHLO
        mail-vk0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1758477AbcLPTXR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:23:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612160937540.3470@nanos>
References: <20161215162648.061449202@linutronix.de> <20161215164240.813682510@linutronix.de>
 <CALCETrUaVrHYS5Jf3+ez4LN_X=_LFmVxhFwkn9JnKcJXGX6uZQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1612160937540.3470@nanos>
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:22:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrX7rXvp0NeCgBWaBzHYhAJq0OPwGOU4x1thTag45LLTOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] x86/process: Optimize TIF_BLOCKSTEP switch
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> > +static inline void toggle_debugctlmsr(unsigned long mask)
>> > +{
>> > +       unsigned long msrval;
>> > +
>> > +#ifndef CONFIG_X86_DEBUGCTLMSR
>> > +       if (boot_cpu_data.x86 < 6)
>> > +               return;
>> > +#endif
>> > +       rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, msrval);
>> > +       wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, msrval ^ mask);
>> > +}
>> > +
>>
>> This scares me.  If the MSR ever gets out of sync with the TI flag,
>> this will malfunction.  And IIRC the MSR is highly magical and the CPU
>> clears it all by itself under a variety of not-so-well documented
>> circumstances.
>
> If that is true, then the code today is broken as well, when the flag has
> been cleared and both prev and next have the flag set. Then it won't be
> updated for the next task.
>
> The we should not use the TIF flag and store a debugmask in thread info and
> do:
>
>         if (prev->debugmask || next->debugmask) {
>                 if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_BLOCKSTEP)) {
>                         rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, msrval);
>                         msrval &= DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
>                         msrval |= next->debugmask;
>                 }
>         }

Seems reasonable to me.  Although keeping it in flags might simplify
the logic a bit.  FWIW, I doubt we care about performance much when
either prev or next has the bit set.

--Andy