lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 04:44:33 +0000
Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:

> at 9:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 18, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> at 10:00 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On Oct 18, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> at 8:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:12 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> So thinking about it further, rewinding the instruction seems the easiest
> >>>> and most robust solution. I’ll do it.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> 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).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Look for cond_local_irq_enable().
> >>>>
> >>>> I looked at it. Yet, I still don’t see how exceptions might happen in my
> >>>> use-case, but having said that - this can be fixed too.
> >>>
> >>> I’m not totally certain there’s a case that matters. But it’s worth checking
> >>
> >> I am still checking. But, I wanted to ask you whether the existing code is
> >> correct, since it seems to me that others do the same mistake I did, unless
> >> I don’t understand the code.
> >>
> >> Consider for example do_int3(), and see my inlined comments:
> >>
> >> dotraplinkage void notrace do_int3(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> >> {
> >> ...
> >> ist_enter(regs); // => preempt_disable()
> >> cond_local_irq_enable(regs); // => assume it enables IRQs
> >>
> >> ...
> >> // resched irq can be delivered here. It will not caused rescheduling
> >> // since preemption is disabled
> >>
> >> cond_local_irq_disable(regs); // => assume it disables IRQs
> >> ist_exit(regs); // => preempt_enable_no_resched()
> >> }
> >>
> >> At this point resched will not happen for unbounded length of time (unless
> >> there is another point when exiting the trap handler that checks if
> >> preemption should take place).
> >
> > I think it's only a bug in the cases where someone uses extable to fix
> > up an int3 (which would be nuts) or that we oops. But I should still
> > fix it. In the normal case where int3 was in user code, we'll miss
> > the reschedule in do_trap(), but we'll reschedule in
> > prepare_exit_to_usermode() -> exit_to_usermode_loop().
>
> Thanks for your quick response, and sorry for bothering instead of dealing
> with it. Note that do_debug() does something similar to do_int3().
>
> And then there is optimized_callback() that also uses
> preempt_enable_no_resched(). I think the original use was correct, but then
> a19b2e3d7839 ("kprobes/x86: Remove IRQ disabling from ftrace-based/optimized
> kprobes”) removed the IRQ disabling, while leaving
> preempt_enable_no_resched() . No?

Ah, good catch!
Indeed, we don't need to stick on no_resched anymore.

Thanks!


--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-20 03:23    [W:0.138 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site