Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:31:28 -0500 | From | Peter Xu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] smp: Allow smp_call_function_single_async() to insert locked csd |
| |
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:51:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:58:33PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 09:37:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > > (3) Others: > > > > > > > > *** arch/mips/kernel/process.c: > > > > raise_backtrace[713] smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, csd); > > > > > > per-cpu csd data, seems perfectly fine usage. > > > > I'm not sure whether I get the point, I just feel like it could still > > trigger as long as we do it super fast, before IPI handled, > > disregarding whether it's per-cpu csd or not. > > No, I wasn't paying attention last night. I'm thinking this one might > maybe be in 1). It does the state check using that bitmap.
Indeed. Though I'm not very certain to change this one too, since I'm not sure whether that pr_warn is really intended:
if (cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, &backtrace_csd_busy)) { pr_warn("Unable to send backtrace IPI to CPU%u - perhaps it hung?\n", cpu); continue; }
I mean, that should depend on if it can really hang somehow (or it's the same issue as what we're trying to fix)... If it won't hang, then it should be safe I think, and this pr_warn could be helpless after all.
> > > > > *** arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c: > > > > cpuid_read[85] err = smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &csd); > > > > *** arch/x86/lib/msr-smp.c: > > > > rdmsr_safe_on_cpu[182] err = smp_call_function_single_async(cpu, &csd); > > > > > > These two have csd on stack and wait with a completion. seems fine. > > > > Yeh this is true, then I'm confused why they don't use the sync() > > helpers.. > > I suspect to be nice for virt. Both CPUID and MSR accesses can trap. but > now I'm confused, because it is mostly WRMSR that traps. > > Anyway, see the commit here: 07cde313b2d2 ("x86/msr: Allow rdmsr_safe_on_cpu() to schedule")
Yes that makes sense. Thanks for the pointer.
However, then my next confusion is why they can't provide a common solution to the smp code again... I feel like it could be even easier (please see below). I'm not very familiar with smp code yet, but if it works it should benefit all callers imho.
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c index dd31e8228218..7a1b163d1e4b 100644 --- a/kernel/smp.c +++ b/kernel/smp.c @@ -307,11 +307,12 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, void *info, err = generic_exec_single(cpu, csd, func, info); + put_cpu(); + + /* If wait, csd is on stack so it's safe without get_cpu() */ if (wait) csd_lock_wait(csd); - put_cpu(); - return err; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_call_function_single); Thanks,
-- Peter Xu
|  |