Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state

[Dave Martin]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 06:14:20PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> When the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON, some part of
> the kernel may be able to use FPSIMD/SVE. This is for instance the case
> for crypto code.
> 
> Any use of FPSIMD/SVE in the kernel are clearly marked by using the
> function kernel_neon_{begin, end}. Furthermore, this can only be used
> when may_use_simd() returns true.
> 
> The current implementation of may_use_simd() allows softirq to use
> FPSIMD/SVE unless it is currently in used (i.e kernel_neon_busy is true).

Nit: "in used" -> "in use"

> When in used, softirqs usually fallback to a software method.

Likewise.

Nit: "fallback" -> "fall back"

> At the moment, as a softirq may use FPSIMD/SVE, softirqs are disabled
> when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context. This has the drawback to disable
> all softirqs even if they are not using FPSIMD/SVE.
> 
> As a softirq should not rely on been able to use simd at a given time,
> there are limited reason to keep softirq disabled when touching the

The implication is not totally clear to me here.  Maybe write something
like

"Since a softirq is supposed to check may_use_simd() anyway before
attempting to use FPSIMD/SVE, there is limited reason to keep softirq
disabled when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context [...]"

> FPSIMD/SVE context. Instead, we can only disable preemption and tell

I'd put "just" or "simply" instead of "only" here.

> the NEON unit is currently in use.

Maybe "mark the FPSIMD/SVE context as in use by setting the
CPU's kernel_neon_busy flag".

> This patch introduces two new helpers {get, put}_cpu_fpsimd_context to
> mark the area using FPSIMD/SVE context and use them in replacement of

uses

> local_bh_{disable, enable}. The functions kernel_neon_{begin, end} are
> also re-implemented to use the new helpers.
> 
> Additionally, this patch introduced a double-underscored version of each

introduces

> helper that can be used when preemption is disabled. This avoid to
> disable/enable preemption for again and helps documenting places where

The wording seems a bit mangled here?  Also, these are not for general
use, so maybe say something like

"For use in the fpsimd_thread_switch(), which is a critical path where
preemption is already disabled, double-underscored versions of the
helpers are provided to avoid disabling preemption again."

(I'm assuming here that we don't need to use these elsewhere -- see
other comments.)

> context can only be used by one instance.
> 
> This patch has been benchmarked on Linux 5.1-rc4 with defconfig.
> 
> On Juno2:
>     * hackbench 100 process 1000 (10 times)
>     * .7% quicker
> 
> On ThunderX 2:
>     * hackbench 1000 process 1000 (20 times)
>     * 3.4% quicker
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
>     Changes in v2:
>         - Remove spurious call to kernel_neon_enable in kernel_neon_begin.
>         - Rename kernel_neon_{enable, disable} to {get, put}_cpu_fpsimd_context
>         - Introduce a double-underscore version of the helpers for case
>         where preemption is already disabled
>         - Introduce have_cpu_fpsimd_context() and use it in WARN_ON(...)
>         - Surround more places in the code with the new helpers
>         - Rework the comments
>         - Update the commit message with the benchmark result
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h |   4 +-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c    | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h
> index 6495cc51246f..94c0dac508aa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h
> @@ -15,10 +15,10 @@
>  #include <linux/preempt.h>
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON
> -
>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(bool, kernel_neon_busy);
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON
> +
>  /*
>   * may_use_simd - whether it is allowable at this time to issue SIMD
>   *                instructions or access the SIMD register file
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> index 9e4e4b6acd93..761d848fb26d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@
>   * To prevent this from racing with the manipulation of the task's FPSIMD state
>   * from task context and thereby corrupting the state, it is necessary to
>   * protect any manipulation of a task's fpsimd_state or TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE
> - * flag with local_bh_disable() unless softirqs are already masked.
> + * flag with kernel_neon_{disable, enable}. This will still allow softirqs to

These names don't match the code now.

> + * run but prevent them to use FPSIMD.
>   *
>   * For a certain task, the sequence may look something like this:
>   * - the task gets scheduled in; if both the task's fpsimd_cpu field
> @@ -150,6 +151,58 @@ extern void __percpu *efi_sve_state;
>  
>  #endif /* ! CONFIG_ARM64_SVE */
>  
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, kernel_neon_busy);
> +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(kernel_neon_busy);

This feels mis-named now.  Maybe "fpsimd_context_busy" would be a better
name?

> +
> +/*
> + * Obtain the CPU FPSIMD context for use by the calling context.
> + *
> + * The caller may freely modify FPSIMD context until *put_cpu_fpsimd_context()

Nit: Why *?  This makes it look a bit like get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
returns a pointer and you're saying something about dereferencing that
pointer here.

> + * is called.
> + *
> + * The double-underscore version must only be called if you know the task
> + * can't be preempted.
> + *
> + * __get_cpu_fpsimd_context() *must* be in pair with __put_cpu_fpsimd_context()
> + * get_cpu_fpsimd_context() *must* be in pair with put_cpu_fpsimd_context()

"in pair" -> "paired with"?

I'd move each of these comments to be next to the function it applies
to.

> + */
> +static void __get_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> +{
> +	bool busy = __this_cpu_xchg(kernel_neon_busy, true);
> +

I don't mind whether there is a blank line here or not, but please make
it consistent with __put_cpu_fpsimd_context().

> +	WARN_ON(busy);
> +}
> +
> +static void get_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> +{
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	__get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Release the CPU FPSIMD context.
> + *
> + * Must be called from a context in which *get_cpu_fpsimd_context() was

Nit: Why *?

> + * previously called, with no call to *put_cpu_fpsimd_context() in the
> + * meantime.
> + */
> +static void __put_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> +{
> +	bool busy = __this_cpu_xchg(kernel_neon_busy, false);
> +	WARN_ON(!busy); /* No matching get_cpu_fpsimd_context()? */
> +}
> +
> +static void put_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> +{
> +	__put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
> +	preempt_enable();
> +}
> +
> +static bool have_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> +{
> +	return (!preemptible() && __this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy));

Nit: Redundant ()

> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Call __sve_free() directly only if you know task can't be scheduled
>   * or preempted.
> @@ -221,11 +274,12 @@ static void sve_free(struct task_struct *task)
>   * thread_struct is known to be up to date, when preparing to enter
>   * userspace.
>   *
> - * Softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
> + * The FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()

or __get_cpu_fpsimd_context()?  Since this is effectively documented by
the WARN_ON() and this is a local function anyway, maybe it would be
simpler just to drop this comment here?

> + * before calling this function.
>   */
>  static void task_fpsimd_load(void)
>  {
> -	WARN_ON(!in_softirq() && !irqs_disabled());
> +	WARN_ON(!have_cpu_fpsimd_context());
>  
>  	if (system_supports_sve() && test_thread_flag(TIF_SVE))
>  		sve_load_state(sve_pffr(&current->thread),
> @@ -239,15 +293,22 @@ static void task_fpsimd_load(void)
>   * Ensure FPSIMD/SVE storage in memory for the loaded context is up to
>   * date with respect to the CPU registers.
>   *
> - * Softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
> + * The FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()

Likewise.

> + * before calling this function.
>   */
>  static void fpsimd_save(void)
>  {
>  	struct fpsimd_last_state_struct const *last =
>  		this_cpu_ptr(&fpsimd_last_state);
>  	/* set by fpsimd_bind_task_to_cpu() or fpsimd_bind_state_to_cpu() */
> +	WARN_ON(!have_cpu_fpsimd_context());
>  
> -	WARN_ON(!in_softirq() && !irqs_disabled());
> +	if ( !have_cpu_fpsimd_context() )

Nit: Redundant whitespace around expression.

> +	{
> +		printk("preemptible() = %u kernel_neon_busy = %u\n",
> +		       preemptible(), __this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy));
> +		while (1);
> +	}
>  
>  	if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE)) {
>  		if (system_supports_sve() && test_thread_flag(TIF_SVE)) {
> @@ -352,7 +413,8 @@ static int __init sve_sysctl_init(void) { return 0; }
>   * task->thread.sve_state.
>   *
>   * Task can be a non-runnable task, or current.  In the latter case,
> - * softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
> + * the FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_fpu_fpsimd_context()
> + * before calling this function.
>   * task->thread.sve_state must point to at least sve_state_size(task)
>   * bytes of allocated kernel memory.
>   * task->thread.uw.fpsimd_state must be up to date before calling this
> @@ -379,7 +441,8 @@ static void fpsimd_to_sve(struct task_struct *task)
>   * task->thread.uw.fpsimd_state.
>   *
>   * Task can be a non-runnable task, or current.  In the latter case,
> - * softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
> + * the FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_fpu_fpsimd_context()
> + * before calling this function.
>   * task->thread.sve_state must point to at least sve_state_size(task)
>   * bytes of allocated kernel memory.
>   * task->thread.sve_state must be up to date before calling this function.
> @@ -539,7 +602,7 @@ int sve_set_vector_length(struct task_struct *task,
>  	 * non-SVE thread.
>  	 */
>  	if (task == current) {
> -		local_bh_disable();
> +		get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  
>  		fpsimd_save();
>  	}
> @@ -549,7 +612,7 @@ int sve_set_vector_length(struct task_struct *task,
>  		sve_to_fpsimd(task);
>  
>  	if (task == current)
> -		local_bh_enable();
> +		put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Force reallocation of task SVE state to the correct size
> @@ -862,7 +925,7 @@ asmlinkage void do_sve_acc(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  
>  	sve_alloc(current);
>  
> -	local_bh_disable();
> +	get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  
>  	fpsimd_save();
>  
> @@ -873,7 +936,7 @@ asmlinkage void do_sve_acc(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	if (test_and_set_thread_flag(TIF_SVE))
>  		WARN_ON(1); /* SVE access shouldn't have trapped */
>  
> -	local_bh_enable();
> +	put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -917,6 +980,8 @@ void fpsimd_thread_switch(struct task_struct *next)
>  	if (!system_supports_fpsimd())
>  		return;
>  
> +	__get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
> +
>  	/* Save unsaved fpsimd state, if any: */
>  	fpsimd_save();
>  
> @@ -931,6 +996,8 @@ void fpsimd_thread_switch(struct task_struct *next)
>  
>  	update_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE,
>  			       wrong_task || wrong_cpu);
> +
> +	__put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  }
>  
>  void fpsimd_flush_thread(void)
> @@ -940,7 +1007,7 @@ void fpsimd_flush_thread(void)
>  	if (!system_supports_fpsimd())
>  		return;
>  
> -	local_bh_disable();
> +	get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  
>  	fpsimd_flush_task_state(current);
>  	memset(&current->thread.uw.fpsimd_state, 0,
> @@ -981,7 +1048,7 @@ void fpsimd_flush_thread(void)
>  			current->thread.sve_vl_onexec = 0;
>  	}
>  
> -	local_bh_enable();
> +	put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -993,9 +1060,9 @@ void fpsimd_preserve_current_state(void)
>  	if (!system_supports_fpsimd())
>  		return;
>  
> -	local_bh_disable();
> +	get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  	fpsimd_save();
> -	local_bh_enable();
> +	put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -1012,7 +1079,8 @@ void fpsimd_signal_preserve_current_state(void)
>  
>  /*
>   * Associate current's FPSIMD context with this cpu
> - * Preemption must be disabled when calling this function.
> + * The FPSIMD context should be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
> + * before calling this function.
>   */
>  void fpsimd_bind_task_to_cpu(void)
>  {
> @@ -1058,14 +1126,14 @@ void fpsimd_restore_current_state(void)
>  	if (!system_supports_fpsimd())
>  		return;
>  
> -	local_bh_disable();
> +	get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  
>  	if (test_and_clear_thread_flag(TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE)) {
>  		task_fpsimd_load();
>  		fpsimd_bind_task_to_cpu();
>  	}
>  
> -	local_bh_enable();
> +	put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -1078,7 +1146,7 @@ void fpsimd_update_current_state(struct user_fpsimd_state const *state)
>  	if (!system_supports_fpsimd())
>  		return;
>  
> -	local_bh_disable();
> +	get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  
>  	current->thread.uw.fpsimd_state = *state;
>  	if (system_supports_sve() && test_thread_flag(TIF_SVE))
> @@ -1089,7 +1157,7 @@ void fpsimd_update_current_state(struct user_fpsimd_state const *state)
>  
>  	clear_thread_flag(TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE);
>  
> -	local_bh_enable();
> +	put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -1115,7 +1183,8 @@ void fpsimd_flush_task_state(struct task_struct *t)
>  
>  /*
>   * Invalidate any task's FPSIMD state that is present on this cpu.
> - * This function must be called with softirqs disabled.
> + * The FPSIMD context should be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
> + * before calling this function.
>   */
>  static void fpsimd_flush_cpu_state(void)
>  {
> @@ -1125,19 +1194,18 @@ static void fpsimd_flush_cpu_state(void)
>  
>  /*
>   * Save the FPSIMD state to memory and invalidate cpu view.
> - * This function must be called with softirqs (and preemption) disabled.
> + * This function must be called with preemption disabled.
>   */
>  void fpsimd_save_and_flush_cpu_state(void)
>  {
> +	__get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>  	fpsimd_save();
>  	fpsimd_flush_cpu_state();
> +	__put_cpu_fpsimd_context();

It may be cleaner to avoid the assumption about preemption already being
disabled here.  fpsimd_thread_switch() is rather a special case, but for
this one is this really used on a hot path that justifies the assumption?

If not, we could just move to the regular (non-__) functions here and
drop that comment.

[...]

Cheers
---Dave