lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 031/219] arm64: preempt: Fix big-endian when checking preempt count in assembly
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:14:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:46:03AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit 7faa313f05cad184e8b17750f0cbe5216ac6debb ]
> >
> > Commit 396244692232 ("arm64: preempt: Provide our own implementation of
> > asm/preempt.h") extended the preempt count field in struct thread_info
> > to 64 bits, so that it consists of a 32-bit count plus a 32-bit flag
> > indicating whether or not the current task needs rescheduling.
> >
> > Whilst the asm-offsets definition of TSK_TI_PREEMPT was updated to point
> > to this new field, the assembly usage was left untouched meaning that a
> > 32-bit load from TSK_TI_PREEMPT on a big-endian machine actually returns
> > the reschedule flag instead of the count.
> >
> > Whilst we could fix this by pointing TSK_TI_PREEMPT at the count field,
> > we're actually better off reworking the two assembly users so that they
> > operate on the whole 64-bit value in favour of inspecting the thread
> > flags separately in order to determine whether a reschedule is needed.
> >
> > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> > Reported-by: "kernelci.org bot" <bot@kernelci.org>
> > Tested-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 8 +++-----
> > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 6 ++----
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> > index 5a97ac8531682..0c100506a29aa 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> > @@ -683,11 +683,9 @@ USER(\label, ic ivau, \tmp2) // invalidate I line PoU
> > .macro if_will_cond_yield_neon
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> > get_thread_info x0
> > - ldr w1, [x0, #TSK_TI_PREEMPT]
> > - ldr x0, [x0, #TSK_TI_FLAGS]
> > - cmp w1, #PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET
> > - csel x0, x0, xzr, eq
> > - tbnz x0, #TIF_NEED_RESCHED, .Lyield_\@ // needs rescheduling?
> > + ldr x0, [x0, #TSK_TI_PREEMPT]
> > + sub x0, x0, #PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET
> > + cbz x0, .Lyield_\@
> > /* fall through to endif_yield_neon */
> > .subsection 1
> > .Lyield_\@ :
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > index 5f800384cb9a8..bb68323530458 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> > @@ -622,10 +622,8 @@ el1_irq:
> > irq_handler
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> > - ldr w24, [tsk, #TSK_TI_PREEMPT] // get preempt count
> > - cbnz w24, 1f // preempt count != 0
> > - ldr x0, [tsk, #TSK_TI_FLAGS] // get flags
> > - tbz x0, #TIF_NEED_RESCHED, 1f // needs rescheduling?
> > + ldr x24, [tsk, #TSK_TI_PREEMPT] // get preempt count
> > + cbnz x24, 1f // preempt count != 0
> > bl el1_preempt
>
> While updating 4.19-rt, I stumbled on this change to arm64 backport. And was
> confused by it, but looking deeper, this is something that breaks without
> having 396244692232f ("arm64: preempt: Provide our own implementation of
> asm/preempt.h").
>
> That commit inverts the TIF_NEED_RESCHED meaning where set means we don't need
> to resched, and clear means we need to resched. This way we can combine the
> preempt count with the need resched flag test as they share the same 64bit
> word. A 0 means we need to preempt (as NEED_RESCHED being zero means we need
> to resched, and this also means preempt_count is zero). If the
> TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit is set, that means we don't need to resched, and if
> preempt count is something other than zero, we don't need to resched, and
> since those two are together by commit 396244692232f, we can just test
> #TSK_TI_PREEMPT. But because that commit does not exist in 4.19, we can't
> remove the TIF_NEED_RESCHED check, that this backport does, and then breaks
> the kernel!

Yup, without 396244692232 this commit makes no sense. That's why I didn't CC
stable or add a Fixes tag :(

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-16 10:46    [W:0.199 / U:0.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site