Re: [PATCH v7 05/11] task_isolation: add debug boot flag

[Chris Metcalf]

On 09/28/2015 04:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The new "task_isolation_debug" flag simplifies debugging
> > of TASK_ISOLATION kernels when processes are running in
> > PR_TASK_ISOLATION_ENABLE mode.  Such processes should get no
> > interrupts from the kernel, and if they do, when this boot flag is
> > specified a kernel stack dump on the console is generated.
> >
> > It's possible to use ftrace to simply detect whether a task_isolation
> > core has unexpectedly entered the kernel.  But what this boot flag
> > does is allow the kernel to provide better diagnostics, e.g. by
> > reporting in the IPI-generating code what remote core and context
> > is preparing to deliver an interrupt to a task_isolation core.
> >
> > It may be worth considering other ways to generate useful debugging
> > output rather than console spew, but for now that is simple and direct.
> This may be addressed elsewhere, but is there anything that alerts the
> task or the admin if it's PR_TASK_ISOLATION_ENABLE and *not* on a
> nohz_full core?

No, and I've thought about it without coming up with a great
solution.  We could certainly fail the initial prctl() if the caller
was not on a nohz_full core.  But this seems a little asymmetric
since the task could be on such a core at prctl() time, and then
do a sched_setaffinity() later to a non-nohz-full core.  Would
we want to fail that call?  Seems heavy-handed.  Or we could
then clear the task-isolation state and emit a console message.

I suppose we could notice that we were on a nohz-full
enabled system and the task isolation flags were set on return
to userspace, but we were not on a nohz-full core, and emit
a console message and clear the task-isolation state at that point.
But that also seems a little questionable; maybe the user for
some reason was doing some odd migratory thing with their
tasks or threads and was going to end up migrating them to
a final destination where the prctl() would apply.

Any suggestions for a better approach?  Is it worth doing the
minimal printk-warning approach in the previous paragraph?
My instinct is to say that we just leave it as-is, I think.

--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com

--
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/