Re: [PATCH] PREEMPT_RT_FULL: ARM context switch needs IRQs enabled

[Catalin Marinas]

(It looks like gmail decided to send html, I don't understand why, it
probably does this from mobile devices. Sorry for the re-post)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 01:49:20AM +0000, frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 12/19/11 02:02, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:23:30PM +0000, frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> On 12/16/11 03:01, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:20:45AM +0000, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>> ARMv6 and later have VIPT caches and the TLBs are tagged with an ASID
> >>>> (application specific ID). The number of ASIDs is limited to 256 and
> >>>> the allocation algorithm requires IPIs when all the ASIDs have been
> >>>> used.  The IPIs require interrupts enabled during context switch for
> >>>> deadlock avoidance.
> >>>>
> >>>> The RT patch mm-protect-activate-switch-mm.patch disables irqs around
> >>>> activate_mm() and switch_mm(), which are the portion of the ARMv6
> >>>> context switch that require interrupts enabled.
> >>>>
> >>>> The solution for the ARMv6 processors could be to _not_ disable irqs.
> >>>> A more conservative solution is to provide the same environment that
> >>>> the scheduler provides, that is preempt_disable().  This is more
> >>>> resilient for possible future changes to the ARM context switch code
> >>>> that is not aware of the RT patches.
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch will conflict slightly with Catalin's patch set to remove
> >>>> __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW, when that is accepted:
> >>>>
> >>>>    http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.3/01893.html
> >>>>
> >>>> When Catalin's patch set is accepted, this RT patch will need to reverse
> >>>> the change in patch 6 to arch/arm/include/asm/system.h:
> >>>>
> >>>>    -#ifndef CONFIG_CPU_HAS_ASID
> >>>>    -#define __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
> >>>>    -#endif
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The whole point of my patches was to no longer define
> >>> __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on ARM, so bringing it back in is not
> >>> feasible.
> >>
> >> Looking over Catalin's patches again, it looks like my hacky RT patch
> >> will no longer be needed after Catalin's patch set is in place.  The
> >> problem my patch deals with is that with the RT patches applied, use_mm()
> >> calls switch_mm() with IRQs disabled.  The current ARM switch_mm() can
> >> not be called with IRQs disabled.  But with Catalin's patch 4
> >> (http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.3/01898.html)
> >> applied, switch_mm() can be called with IRQs enabled, because
> >> switch_mm() no longer calls check_context() which calls __new_context()
> >> which calls smp_call_function() which requires IRQs to be enabled....
> > 
> > I don't think much has changed with my patches. The switch_mm() itself
> > can be called with IRQs disabled but it wouldn't even do the pgd switch
> > unless it is followed by a finish_arch_post_lock_switch() call (hook
> > introduced by my patch, but only available in sched.c).
> > 
> > I think you need a solution for the RT series without considering my
> > context switch changes. As I understand, the RT code currently calls
> > switch_mm() with interrupts disabled which is not supported on ARM. So
> > we have two solutions:
> > 
> > 1. Change the RT patches to call switch_mm() with interrupts enabled
> >    (and I can modify the ARM code to cope with this scenario and do the
> >    pgd switch in one go).
> > 2. Call switch_mm() with interrupts disabled but invoke an arch hook
> >    once the interrupts have been enabled to complete the pgd switch.
> 
> I think I'm in agreement with you.
> 
> Solution 1 works for the RT patch set with the current mainline (and my
> short term modification to the RT patch set that calls switch_mm() with
> interrupts enabled from use_mm()).  I don't think there is any need to
> modify the ARM code for this to work.  I'm assuming that when you say
> "do the pgd switch" that you are talking about the
> "cpu_switch_mm(next->pgd, next)" that is currently in switch_mm().

Yes.

> Solution 2 will work after version 2 of your patches in "Remove the
> __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW definition" is applied.  In this
> case my short term modification to the RT patch set for solution 1
> would be removed, and instead the RT patch set would call
> finish_arch_post_lock_switch() after re-enabling IRQs in use_mm().

Isn't solution 1 enough with both current ARM code and the latest
context switch patches?

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/