Re: [PATCHv2 0/5] arm64/irqentry: remove duplicate housekeeping of

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:09:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:23:18AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:59:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:36:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > [Adding Paul for RCU, s390 folk for entry code RCU semantics]
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:28:32PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > > > > After introducing arm64/kernel/entry_common.c which is akin to
> > > > > kernel/entry/common.c , the housekeeping of rcu/trace are done twice as
> > > > > the following:
> > > > >     enter_from_kernel_mode()->rcu_irq_enter().
> > > > > And
> > > > >     gic_handle_irq()->...->handle_domain_irq()->irq_enter()->rcu_irq_enter()
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides redundance, based on code analysis, the redundance also raise
> > > > > some mistake, e.g.  rcu_data->dynticks_nmi_nesting inc 2, which causes
> > > > > rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() unexpected.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmmm...
> > > > 
> > > > The fundamental questionss are:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) Who is supposed to be responsible for doing the rcu entry/exit?
> > > > 
> > > > 2) Is it supposed to matter if this happens multiple times?
> > > > 
> > > > For (1), I'd generally expect that this is supposed to happen in the
> > > > arch/common entry code, since that itself (or the irqchip driver) could
> > > > depend on RCU, and if that's the case thatn handle_domain_irq()
> > > > shouldn't need to call rcu_irq_enter(). That would be consistent with
> > > > the way we handle all other exceptions.
> > > > 
> > > > For (2) I don't know whether the level of nesting is suppoosed to
> > > > matter. I was under the impression it wasn't meant to matter in general,
> > > > so I'm a little surprised that rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() depends on a
> > > > specific level of nesting.
> > > > 
> > > > >From a glance it looks like this would cause rcu_sched_clock_irq() to
> > > > skip setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED, and to not call invoke_rcu_core(), which
> > > > doesn't sound right, at least...
> > > > 
> > > > Thomas, Paul, thoughts?
> > > 
> > > It is absolutely required that rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() calls
> > > be balanced.  Normally, this is taken care of by the fact that irq_enter()
> > > invokes rcu_irq_enter() and irq_exit() invokes rcu_irq_exit().  Similarly,
> > > nmi_enter() invokes rcu_nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() invokes rcu_nmi_exit().
> > 
> > Sure; I didn't mean to suggest those weren't balanced! The problem here
> > is *nesting*. Due to the structure of our entry code and the core IRQ
> > code, when handling an IRQ we have a sequence:
> > 
> > 	irq_enter() // arch code
> > 	irq_enter() // irq code
> > 
> > 	< irq handler here >
> > 
> > 	irq_exit() // irq code
> > 	irq_exit() // arch code
> > 
> > ... and if we use something like rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() in the
> > middle (e.g. as part of rcu_sched_clock_irq()), this will not give the
> > expected result because of the additional nesting, since
> > rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() seems to expect that dynticks_nmi_nesting
> > is only incremented once per exception entry, when it does:
> > 
> > 	/* Are we at first interrupt nesting level? */
> > 	nesting = __this_cpu_read(rcu_data.dynticks_nmi_nesting);
> > 	if (nesting > 1)
> > 		return false;
> > 
> > What I'm trying to figure out is whether that expectation is legitimate,
> > and assuming so, where the entry/exit should happen.
> 
> Oooh...
> 
> The penalty for fooling rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() is that RCU will
> be unable to detect a userspace quiescent state for a non-nohz_full
> CPU.  That could result in RCU CPU stall warnings if a user task runs
> continuously on a given CPU for more than 21 seconds (60 seconds in
> some distros).  And this can easily happen if the user has a CPU-bound
> thread that is the only runnable task on that CPU.
> 
> So, yes, this does need some sort of resolution.
> 
> The traditional approach is (as you surmise) to have only a single call
> to irq_enter() on exception entry and only a single call to irq_exit()
> on exception exit.  If this is feasible, it is highly recommended.

Cool; that's roughly what I was expecting / hoping to hear!

> In theory, we could have that "1" in "nesting > 1" be a constant supplied
> by the architecture (you would want "3" if I remember correctly) but
> in practice could we please avoid this?  For one thing, if there is
> some other path into the kernel for your architecture that does only a
> single irq_enter(), then rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() just doesn't stand
> a chance.  It would need to compare against a different value depending
> on what exception showed up.  Even if that cannot happen, it would be
> better if your architecture could remain in blissful ignorance of the
> colorful details of ->dynticks_nmi_nesting manipulations.

I completely agree. I think it's much harder to keep that in check than
to enforce a "once per architectural exception" policy in the arch code.

> Another approach would be for the arch code to supply RCU a function that
> it calls.  If there is such a function (or perhaps better, if some new
> Kconfig option is enabled), RCU invokes it.  Otherwise, it compares to
> "1" as it does now.  But you break it, you buy it!  ;-)

I guess we could look at the exception regs and inspect the original
context, but it sounds overkill...

I think the cleanest thing is to leave this to arch code, and have the
common IRQ code stay well clear. Unfortunately most architectures
(including arch/arm) still need the common IRQ code to handle this, so
we'll have to make that conditional on Kconfig, something like the below
(build+boot tested only).

If there are no objections, I'll go check who else needs the same
treatment (IIUC at least s390 will), and spin that as a real
patch/series.

Thanks,
Mark.

---->8----
diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig
index 8df1c7102643..c59475e50e4c 100644
--- a/arch/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/Kconfig
@@ -225,6 +225,12 @@ config GENERIC_SMP_IDLE_THREAD
 config GENERIC_IDLE_POLL_SETUP
        bool
 
+config ARCH_ENTERS_IRQ
+       bool
+       help
+         An architecture should select this when it performs irq entry
+         management itself (e.g. calling irq_enter() and irq_exit()).
+
 config ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE
        bool
        help
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 5c7ae4c3954b..fa6476bf2b4d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ config ARM64
        select ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
        select ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK if PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2
        select ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION if TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
+       select ARCH_ENTERS_IRQ
        select ARCH_HAS_CACHE_LINE_SIZE
        select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VIRTUAL
        select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VM_PGTABLE
diff --git a/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c b/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c
index 4e3c29bb603c..6affa12222e0 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/irqdesc.c
@@ -677,6 +677,15 @@ int generic_handle_domain_irq(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int hwirq)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(generic_handle_domain_irq);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ
+
+#ifdef ARCH_ENTERS_IRQ
+#define handle_irq_enter()
+#define handle_irq_exit()
+#else
+#define handle_irq_enter()     irq_enter()
+#define handle_irq_exit()      irq_exit()
+#endif
+
 /**
  * handle_domain_irq - Invoke the handler for a HW irq belonging to a domain,
  *                     usually for a root interrupt controller
@@ -693,7 +702,7 @@ int handle_domain_irq(struct irq_domain *domain,
        struct irq_desc *desc;
        int ret = 0;
 
-       irq_enter();
+       handle_irq_enter();
 
        /* The irqdomain code provides boundary checks */
        desc = irq_resolve_mapping(domain, hwirq);
@@ -702,7 +711,7 @@ int handle_domain_irq(struct irq_domain *domain,
        else
                ret = -EINVAL;
 
-       irq_exit();
+       handle_irq_exit();
        set_irq_regs(old_regs);
        return ret;
 }