From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:50:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e647de48-fd74-eabc-0a57-c2c519a36012@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190411163423.GJ3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Hi Dave,
On 4/11/19 5:34 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 04:58:41PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On 4/5/19 4:07 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 10:02:45AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * may_use_simd - whether it is allowable at this time to issue SIMD
>>>>>> * instructions or access the SIMD register file
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
>>>>>> index 5ebe73b69961..b7e5dac26190 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
>>>>>> @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@
>>>>>> * To prevent this from racing with the manipulation of the task's FPSIMD state
>>>>>> * from task context and thereby corrupting the state, it is necessary to
>>>>>> * protect any manipulation of a task's fpsimd_state or TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE
>>>>>> - * flag with local_bh_disable() unless softirqs are already masked.
>>>>>> + * flag with kernel_neon_{disable, enable}. This will still allow softirqs to
>>>>>> + * run but prevent them to use FPSIMD.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> * For a certain task, the sequence may look something like this:
>>>>>> * - the task gets scheduled in; if both the task's fpsimd_cpu field
>>>>>> @@ -142,6 +143,9 @@ extern void __percpu *efi_sve_state;
>>>>>> #endif /* ! CONFIG_ARM64_SVE */
>>>>>> +static void kernel_neon_disable(void);
>>>>>> +static void kernel_neon_enable(void);
>>>>>
>>>>> I find these names a bit confusing: _disable() actualy enables FPSIMD/SVE
>>>>> context access for the current context (i.e., makes it safe).
>>>>>
>>>>> Since these also disable/enable preemption, perhaps we can align them
>>>>> with the existing get_cpu()/put_cpu(), something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> void get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>>>>> vold put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>>>>>
>>>>> If you consider it's worth adding the checking helper I alluded to
>>>>> above, it could then be called something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> bool have_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure where you suggested a checking helper above. Do you refer to
>>>> exposing kernel_neon_busy even for !CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON?
>>>
>>> Hmmm, looks like I got my reply out of order here.
>>>
>>> I meant the helper (if any) to check
>>> !preemptible() && !__this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy).
>>
>> I guess you are using && instead of || because some of the caller may not
>> call get_cpu_fpsimd_context() before but still disable preemption, right?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to have all the user calling get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>> and put_cpu_fpsimd_context()?
>>
>> This has the advantage to uniformize how the way FPSIMD is protected and
>> also...
>
> My expectation is that all users would have called
> get_cpu_fpsimd_context().
This is not the case today (see kvm_arch_vcpu_put_fp), I will look at
protecting it with a call to get_cpu_fpsimd_context().
>
> The reason for writing the check that way is that we can't meaningfully
> inspect percpu variables unless we are non-preemptible already. The &&
> means we don't do the percpu read at all is the case where preemptible()
> is true.
I am not sure to understand why it would be necessary.
this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy) should be sufficient here.
If it is set then, preemption is disabled. Or are you worried about user
directly setting kernel_neon_busy instead of calling get_cpu_fpsimd_context?
>
> Or do you think my logic is wrong somewhere? (It's possible...)
I think your logic would not return the correct value. We want
have_cpu_fpsimd_context() to return true if it is not preemptible and
kernel_neon_busy is true. So we would want:
!preemptible() && __this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy)
If we speak about the implementation of have_cpu_fpsimd_context(), then
we want:
!preemptible() && __this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy)
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-11 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-08 16:55 [RFC PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state Julien Grall
2019-02-12 17:13 ` Julia Cartwright
2019-02-18 14:07 ` Julien Grall
2019-02-13 14:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-02-13 15:36 ` Dave Martin
2019-02-13 15:40 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-13 15:42 ` Dave Martin
2019-02-13 16:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-02-14 10:34 ` Dave Martin
2019-02-18 15:07 ` Julien Grall
2019-03-04 17:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-03-14 18:07 ` Julien Grall
2019-03-15 10:06 ` Dave Martin
2019-03-15 10:22 ` Julien Grall
2019-02-13 16:50 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-02-18 14:33 ` Julien Grall
2019-02-18 16:32 ` Julien Grall
2019-04-04 10:52 ` Dave Martin
2019-04-05 9:02 ` Julien Grall
2019-04-05 14:39 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-04-05 15:17 ` Julien Grall
2019-04-05 15:42 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-04-11 15:12 ` Julien Grall
2019-04-05 15:07 ` Dave Martin
2019-04-11 15:58 ` Julien Grall
2019-04-11 16:34 ` Dave Martin
2019-04-11 16:50 ` Julien Grall [this message]
2019-04-11 14:10 ` Julien Grall
2019-02-08 17:03 [PATCH 0/3] Remove reference of TIF_USEDFPU on arch not using it Julien Grall
2019-02-08 17:03 ` [RFC PATCH] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state Julien Grall
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=e647de48-fd74-eabc-0a57-c2c519a36012@arm.com \
--to=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--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).