Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Fri Nov 21 2014 - 18:38:45 EST
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:06:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:19:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:32:50PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
> >> >> > context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
> >> >> > standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stacks, so they are
> >> >> > atomic. IST entries from kernel space are like NMIs from RCU's
> >> >> > perspective -- they are not quiescent states even if they
> >> >> > interrupted the kernel during a quiescent state.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Add and use ist_enter and ist_exit to track IST context. Even
> >> >> > though x86_32 has no IST stacks, we track these interrupts the same
> >> >> > way.
> >> >>
> >> >> I should add:
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no idea why RCU read-side critical sections are safe inside
> >> >> __do_page_fault today. It's guarded by exception_enter(), but that
> >> >> doesn't do anything if context tracking is off, and context tracking
> >> >> is usually off. What am I missing here?
> >> >
> >> > Ah! There are three cases:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Context tracking is off on a non-idle CPU. In this case, RCU is
> >> > still paying attention to CPUs running in both userspace and in
> >> > the kernel. So if a page fault happens, RCU will be set up to
> >> > notice any RCU read-side critical sections.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Context tracking is on on a non-idle CPU. In this case, RCU
> >> > might well be ignoring userspace execution: NO_HZ_FULL and
> >> > all that. However, as you pointed out, in this case the
> >> > context-tracking code lets RCU know that we have entered the
> >> > kernel, which means that RCU will again be paying attention to
> >> > RCU read-side critical sections.
> >> >
> >> > 3. The CPU is idle. In this case, RCU is ignoring the CPU, so
> >> > if we take a page fault when context tracking is off, life
> >> > will be hard. But the kernel is not supposed to take page
> >> > faults in the idle loop, so this is not a problem.
> >> I guess so, as long as there are really no page faults in the idle loop.
> > As far as I know, there are not. If there are, someone needs to let
> > me know! ;-)
> >> There are, however, machine checks in the idle loop, and maybe kprobes
> >> (haven't checked), so I think this patch might fix real bugs.
> > If you can get ISTs from the idle loop, then the patch is needed.
> >> > Just out of curiosity... Can an NMI occur in IST context? If it can,
> >> > I need to make rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit() deal properly with
> >> > nested calls.
> >> Yes, and vice versa. That code looked like it handled nesting
> >> correctly, but I wasn't entirely sure.
> > It currently does not, please see below patch. Are you able to test
> > nesting? It would be really cool if you could do so -- I have no
> > way to test this patch.
> I can try. It's sort of easy -- I'll put an int3 into do_nmi and add
> a fixup to avoid crashing.
> What should I look for? Should I try to force full nohz on and assert
> something? I don't really know how to make full nohz work.
You should look for the WARN_ON_ONCE() calls in rcu_nmi_enter() and
rcu_nmi_exit() to fire.
> >> Also, just to make sure: are we okay if rcu_nmi_enter() is called
> >> before exception_enter if context tracking is on and we came directly
> >> from userspace?
> > If I understand correctly, this will result in context tracking invoking
> > rcu_user_enter(), which will result in the rcu_dynticks counter having an
> > odd value. In that case, rcu_nmi_enter() will notice that RCU is already
> > paying attention to this CPU via its check of atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks)
> > & 0x1), and will thus just return. The matching rcu_nmi_exit() will
> > notice that the nesting count is zero, and will also just return.
> > Thus, everything works in that case.
> > In contrast, if rcu_nmi_enter() was invoked from the idle loop, it
> > would see that RCU is not paying attention to this CPU and that the
> > NMI nesting depth (which rcu_nmi_enter() increments) used to be zero.
> > It would then atomically increment rtdp->dynticks, forcing RCU to start
> > paying attention to this CPU. The matching rcu_nmi_exit() will see
> > that the nesting count was non-zero, but became zero when decremented.
> > This will cause rcu_nmi_exit() to atomically increment rtdp->dynticks,
> > which will tell RCU to stop paying attention to this CPU.
> > Thanx, Paul
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > rcu: Make rcu_nmi_enter() handle nesting
> > Andy Lutomirski is introducing ISTs into x86, which from RCU's
> > viewpoint are NMIs. Because ISTs and NMIs can nest, rcu_nmi_enter()
> > and rcu_nmi_exit() must now correctly handle nesting. As luck would
> > have it, rcu_nmi_exit() handles nesting but rcu_nmi_enter() does not.
> > This patch therefore makes rcu_nmi_enter() handle nesting.
> Thanks. Should I add this to v5 of my series?
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 8749f43f3f05..875421aff6e3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -770,7 +770,8 @@ void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
> > if (rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting == 0 &&
> > (atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1))
> > return;
> > - rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting++;
> > + if (rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting++ != 0)
> > + return; /* Nested NMI/IST/whatever. */
> > smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* Force delay from prior write. */
> > atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
> > /* CPUs seeing atomic_inc() must see later RCU read-side crit sects */
> Andy Lutomirski
> AMA Capital Management, LLC
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/