Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:36 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 06:41:31AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 9, 2019, at 11:02 PM, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 09:24:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:02 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 03:50:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:10 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disabled
> > >>>>> on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> By default, C0.2 is enabled and the user wait instructions result in
> > >>>>> lower power consumption with slower wakeup time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But in real time systems which require faster wakeup time although power
> > >>>>> savings could be smaller, the administrator needs to disable C0.2 and all
> > >>>>> C0.2 requests from user applications revert to C0.1.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A sysfs interface "/sys/devices/system/cpu/umwait_control/enable_c02" is
> > >>>>> created to allow the administrator to control C0.2 state during run time.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This looks better than the previous version.  I think the locking is
> > >>>> still rather confused.  You have a mutex that you hold while changing
> > >>>> the value, which is entirely reasonable.  But, of the code paths that
> > >>>> write the MSR, only one takes the mutex.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think you should consider making a function that just does:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached), 0);
> > >>>>
> > >>>> and using it in all the places that update the MSR.  The only thing
> > >>>> that should need the lock is the sysfs code to avoid accidentally
> > >>>> corrupting the value, but that code should also use WRITE_ONCE to do
> > >>>> its update.
> > >>>
> > >>> Based on the comment, the illustrative CPU online and enable_c02 store
> > >>> functions would be:
> > >>>
> > >>> umwait_cpu_online()
> > >>> {
> > >>>        wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached), 0);
> > >>>        return 0;
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> enable_c02_store()
> > >>> {
> > >>>       mutex_lock(&umwait_lock);
> > >>>       umwait_control_c02 = (u32)!c02_enabled;
> > >>>       WRITE_ONCE(umwait_control_cached, 2 | get_umwait_control_max_time());
> > >>>       on_each_cpu(umwait_control_msr_update, NULL, 1);
> > >>>       mutex_unlock(&umwait_lock);
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> Then suppose umwait_control_cached = 100000 initially and only CPU0 is
> > >>> running. Admin change bit 0 in MSR from 0 to 1 to disable C0.2 and is
> > >>> onlining CPU1 in the same time:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. On CPU1, read umwait_control_cached to eax as 100000 in
> > >>> umwait_cpu_online()
> > >>> 2. On CPU0, write 100001 to umwait_control_cached in enable_c02_store()
> > >>> 3. On CPU1, wrmsr with eax=100000 in umwaint_cpu_online()
> > >>> 4. On CPU0, wrmsr with 100001 in enabled_c02_store()
> > >>>
> > >>> The result is CPU0 and CPU1 have different MSR values.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, but only transiently, because you didn't finish your example.
> > >>
> > >> Step 5: enable_c02_store() does on_each_cpu(), and CPU 1 gets updated.
> > >
> > > There is no sync on wrmsr on CPU0 and CPU1.
> >
> > What do you mean by sync?
> >
> > > So a better sequence to
> > > describe the problem is changing the order of wrmsr:
> > >
> > > 1. On CPU1, read umwait_control_cached to eax as 100000 in
> > > umwait_cpu_online()
> > > 2. On CPU0, write 100001 to umwait_control_cached in enable_c02_store()
> > > 3. On CPU0, wrmsr with 100001 in on_each_cpu() in enabled_c02_store()
> > > 4. On CPU1, wrmsr with eax=100000 in umwaint_cpu_online()
> > >
> > > So CPU1 and CPU0 have different MSR values. This won't be transient.
> >
> > You are still ignoring the wrmsr on CPU1 due to on_each_cpu().
> >
>
> Initially umwait_control_cached is 100000 and CPU0 is online while CPU1
> is going to be online:
>
> 1. On CPU1, cpu_online_mask=0x3 in start_secondary()
> 2. On CPU1, read umwait_control_cached to eax as 100000 in umwait_cpu_online()
> 3. On CPU0, write 100001 to umwait_control_cached in enable_c02_store()
> 4. On CPU0, execute one_each_cpu() in enabled_c02_store():
>     wrmsr with 100001 on CPU0
>     wrmsr with 100001 on CPU1
> 5. On CPU1, wrmsr with eax=100000 in umwaint_cpu_online()
>
> So the MSR is 100000 on CPU1 and 100001 on CPU0. The MSRs are different on
> the CPUs.
>
> Is this a right sequence to demonstrate locking issue without the mutex
> locking?
>

Fair enough.  I would fix it differently, though:

static void update_this_cpu_umwait_msr(void)
{
  WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());  /* or local_irq_save() */

  /* We need to prevent umwait_control from being changed *and*
completing its WRMSR between our read and our WRMSR.  By turning IRQs
off here, we ensure that no sysfs write happens on this CPU and we
also make sure that any concurrent sysfs write from a different CPU
will not finish updating us via IPI until we're done. */
  wrmsrl(MSR_..., READ_ONCE(umwait_control), 0);
}