On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 05:29:05PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 17:01, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 06:01:05PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > Kernel mode NEON can be used in task or softirq context, but only in
> > > a non-nesting manner, i.e., softirq context is only permitted if the
> > > interrupt was not taken at a point where the kernel was using the NEON
> > > in task context.
> > >
> > > This means all users of kernel mode NEON have to be aware of this
> > > limitation, and either need to provide scalar fallbacks that may be much
> > > slower (up to 20x for AES instructions) and potentially less safe, or
> > > use an asynchronous interface that defers processing to a later time
> > > when the NEON is guaranteed to be available.
> > >
> > > Given that grabbing and releasing the NEON is cheap, we can relax this
> > > restriction, by increasing the granularity of kernel mode NEON code, and
> > > always disabling softirq processing while the NEON is being used in task
> > > context.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Sorry for the slow reply on this... it looks reasonable, but I have a
> > few comments below.
> >
>
> No worries - thanks for taking a look.
>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 19 +++++++++++++------
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 2 ++
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c | 4 ++--
> > > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> > > index ddbe6bf00e33..74ce46ed55ac 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h
> > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > > #include <asm-generic/export.h>
> > >
> > > #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
> > > +#include <asm/alternative.h>
> > > #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> > > #include <asm/cputype.h>
> > > #include <asm/debug-monitors.h>
> > > @@ -717,17 +718,23 @@ USER(\label, ic ivau, \tmp2) // invalidate I line PoU
> > > .endm
> > >
> > > .macro if_will_cond_yield_neon
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
> > > get_current_task x0
> > > ldr x0, [x0, #TSK_TI_PREEMPT]
> > > - sub x0, x0, #PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET
> > > - cbz x0, .Lyield_\@
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPTION
> > > + cmp x0, #PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET
> > > + beq .Lyield_\@ // yield on need_resched in task context
> > > +#endif
> > > + /* never yield while serving a softirq */
> > > + tbnz x0, #SOFTIRQ_SHIFT, .Lnoyield_\@
> >
> > Can you explain the rationale here?
> >
> > Using if_will_cond_yield_neon suggests the algo thinks it may run for
> > too long the stall preemption until completion, but we happily stall
> > preemption _and_ softirqs here.
> >
> > Is it actually a bug to use the NEON conditional yield helpers in
> > softirq context?
> >
>
> No, it is not. But calling kernel_neon_end() from softirq context will
> not cause it to finish any faster, so there is really no point in
> doing so.
>
> > Ideally, if processing in softirq context takes an unreasonable about of
> > time, the work would be handed off to an asynchronous worker, but that
> > does seem to conflict rather with the purpose of this series...
> >
>
> Agreed, but this is not something we can police at this level. If the
> caller does an unreasonable amount of work from a softirq, no amount
> of yielding is going to make a difference.
Ack, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Anyone writing softirq code can starve preemption, so I agree that we
should trust people to know what they're doing.
> > > +
> > > + adr_l x0, irq_stat + IRQ_CPUSTAT_SOFTIRQ_PENDING
> > > + this_cpu_offset x1
> > > + ldr w0, [x0, x1]
> > > + cbnz w0, .Lyield_\@ // yield on pending softirq in task context
> > > +.Lnoyield_\@:
> > > /* fall through to endif_yield_neon */
> > > .subsection 1
> > > .Lyield_\@ :
> > > -#else
> > > - .section ".discard.cond_yield_neon", "ax"
> > > -#endif
> > > .endm
> > >
> > > .macro do_cond_yield_neon
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> > > index 7d32fc959b1a..34ef70877de4 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> > > @@ -93,6 +93,8 @@ int main(void)
> > > DEFINE(DMA_FROM_DEVICE, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> > > BLANK();
> > > DEFINE(PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET, PREEMPT_DISABLE_OFFSET);
> > > + DEFINE(SOFTIRQ_SHIFT, SOFTIRQ_SHIFT);
> > > + DEFINE(IRQ_CPUSTAT_SOFTIRQ_PENDING, offsetof(irq_cpustat_t, __softirq_pending));
> > > BLANK();
> > > DEFINE(CPU_BOOT_STACK, offsetof(struct secondary_data, stack));
> > > DEFINE(CPU_BOOT_TASK, offsetof(struct secondary_data, task));
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> > > index 062b21f30f94..823e3a8a8871 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> > > @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static void __get_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> > > */
> > > static void get_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> > > {
> > > - preempt_disable();
> > > + local_bh_disable();
> > > __get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static void __put_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> > > static void put_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> > > {
> > > __put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
> > > - preempt_enable();
> > > + local_bh_enable();
> > > }
> > >
> > > static bool have_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
> >
> > I was concerned about catching all the relevant preempt_disable()s, but
> > it had slipped my memory that Julien had factored these into one place.
> >
> > I can't see off the top of my head any reason why this shouldn't work.
> >
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > In threory, switching to local_bh_enable() here will add a check for
> > pending softirqs onto context handling fast paths. I haven't dug into
> > how that works, so perhaps this is trivial on top of the preemption
> > check in preempt_enable(). Do you see any difference in hackbench or
> > similar benchmarks?
> >
>
> I haven't tried, tbh. But by context handling fast paths, you mean
> managing the FP/SIMD state at context switch time, right? Checking for
> pending softirqs amounts to a single per-CPU load plus compare, so
> that should be negligible AFAICT. Obviously, actually handling the
Yes. I've tended to assume, rather than prove, that this kind of thing
is negligible -- so I confess I had not attempted to measure these
effects when writing the original code.
> softirq may take additional time, but that penalty has to be taken
> somewhere - I don't see how that would create extra work that we
> wouldn't have to do otherwise.
>
> I'll do some experiments with hackbench once I get back to this series.
That sounds fine.
Probably you won't find a significant difference anyway.
Cheers
---Dave
