lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about qspinlock nest

----- longman@redhat.com wrote:

> On 01/11/2019 12:06 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2019/1/10 22:43, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2019 03:02 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> >>> Hi Maintainer,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There is a question confused me for days. Appreciate an answer.
> >>>
> >>> In below code, the comment says we never have more than 4 nested
> >>> contexts.
> >>>
> >>> What happen if debug and mce exceptions nest with the four, or we
> >>> ensure it never happen?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>>  * Per-CPU queue node structures; we can never have more than 4
> nested
> >>>  * contexts: task, softirq, hardirq, nmi.
> >>>  *
> >>>  * Exactly fits one 64-byte cacheline on a 64-bit architecture.
> >>>  *
> >>>  * PV doubles the storage and uses the second cacheline for PV
> state.
> >>>  */
> >>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU_ALIGNED(struct qnode, qnodes[MAX_NODES]);
> >>>
> >> Yes, both debug and mce exceptions are some kind of NMIs. So
> >> theoretically, it is possible to have more than four. Are you aware
> of
> >> any debug and MCE exception handlers that need to take a spinlock
> for
> >> synchronization?
> > Not for debug exception, for MCE exception handler I found below
> two:
> >
> > do_machine_check->mce_report_event->schedule_work
> > do_machine_check->force_sig->force_sig_info
> >
> > schedule_work() and force_sig_info() take spinlocks.
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Zhenzhong
>
> The comment for do_machine_scheck() has already state that:
>
>  * This is executed in NMI context not subject to normal locking
> rules. This
>  * implies that most kernel services cannot be safely used. Don't
> even
>  * think about putting a printk in there!
>
> So even if it doesn't exceed the MAX_NODES limit, it could hit
> deadlock
> and other kind of locking hazards. So supporting MCE is not a reason
> strong enough to extend MAX_NODES.

Agree.

>
> In hindsight, we should have added a "BUG_ON(idx >= MAX_NODES);"
> check
> to avoid silent corruption because of that issue.

Looks a good idea if it's hard to avoid using spinlock in MCE handler.

Thanks
Zhenzhong

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 10:26    [W:0.030 / U:3.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site