lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix
Date
at 6:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:

>
>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is sometimes beneficial to prevent preemption for very few
>> instructions, or prevent preemption for some instructions that precede
>> a branch (this latter case will be introduced in the next patches).
>>
>> To provide such functionality on x86-64, we use an empty REX-prefix
>> (opcode 0x40) as an indication that preemption is disabled for the
>> following instruction.
>
> Nifty!
>
> That being said, I think you have a few bugs. First, you can’t just ignore
> a rescheduling interrupt, as you introduce unbounded latency when this
> happens — you’re effectively emulating preempt_enable_no_resched(), which
> is not a drop-in replacement for preempt_enable(). To fix this, you may
> need to jump to a slow-path trampoline that calls schedule() at the end or
> consider rewinding one instruction instead. Or use TF, which is only a
> little bit terrifying…

Yes, I didn’t pay enough attention here. For my use-case, I think that the
easiest solution would be to make synchronize_sched() ignore preemptions
that happen while the prefix is detected. It would slightly change the
meaning of the prefix.

> You also aren’t accounting for the case where you get an exception that
> is, in turn, preempted.

Hmm.. Can you give me an example for such an exception in my use-case? I
cannot think of an exception that might be preempted (assuming #BP, #MC
cannot be preempted).

I agree that for super-general case this might be inappropriate.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-18 05:12    [W:0.203 / U:4.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site