Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 07:29:45AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 2018, at 1:33 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:08:23AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >> Consider for example do_int3(), and see my inlined comments:
> >> 
> >> dotraplinkage void notrace do_int3(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> >> {
> >>    ...
> >>    ist_enter(regs);        // => preempt_disable()
> >>    cond_local_irq_enable(regs);    // => assume it enables IRQs
> >> 
> >>    ...
> >>    // resched irq can be delivered here. It will not caused rescheduling
> >>    // since preemption is disabled
> >> 
> >>    cond_local_irq_disable(regs);    // => assume it disables IRQs
> >>    ist_exit(regs);            // => preempt_enable_no_resched()
> >> }
> >> 
> >> At this point resched will not happen for unbounded length of time (unless
> >> there is another point when exiting the trap handler that checks if
> >> preemption should take place).
> >> 
> >> Another example is __BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY(), which also uses
> >> preempt_enable_no_resched().
> >> 
> >> Am I missing something?
> > 
> > Would not the interrupt return then check for TIF_NEED_RESCHED and call
> > schedule() ?
> 
> The paranoid exit path doesnât check TIF_NEED_RESCHED because itâs
> fundamentally atomic â itâs running on a percpu stack and it canât
> schedule. In theory we could do some evil stack switching, but we
> donât.
> 
> How does NMI handle this?  If an NMI that hit interruptible kernel
> code overflows a perf counter, how does the wake up work?

NMIs should never set NEED_RESCHED. What the perf does it self-IPI
(irq_work) and do the wakeup from there.