On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 07:59:44AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Right, and doing it the way we did previously was safe wrt. that.
> >
> > Can't we have exceptions slow path just like the way we do it in syscalls?
> >
> > Then the exception slow path would just do:
> >
> > if TIF_NOHZ
> > ctx = exception_enter()
> > exception_handler()
> > if TIF_NOHZ
> > exception_exit(ctx)
>
> What's the purpose of TIF_NOHZ right now? For syscalls, it makes
> sense, but is there any case in which TIF_NOHZ is set on one CPU but
> not on another CPU? It might make sense to get the performance back
> using static keys instead of TIF_NOHZ.
Sure if we can manage to do that. The nice thing about TIF flags is that
they are a single check that is always there.
>
> If we switched back to exception_enter, we'd have to remember the
> previous state, and, with a single exception right now, I think that's
> unnecessary.
>
> I think there are only three states we can be in at exception entry:
> user (and user_mode(regs)), kernel (and kernel_mode(regs)), or
> NMI-like.
But we can have user && (!user_mode(regs)) if exception happens on exception
entry code.
> In the user case, the new code is correct. In the kernel
> case, the new code is also correct. In the NMI case (if we're nested
> in an NMI or similar entry)) then it is and was the responsibility of
> the NMI-like entry to call rcu_nmi_enter(), and things that nest
> inside that shouldn't touch context tracking (with the possible
> exception of calling rcu_nmi_enter() again).
>
> In current -tip, there's a slight hole in this due to syscalls, and I'll fix it.
There must be a check for context tracking enabled anyway. So why can't
we just just do in exception entry code:
if (exception_slow_path()) {
exception_enter()
exception_handler()
exception_exit()
} else {
normal stuff
}
Especially if we can manage to implement static keys in ASM, this will sum up to
a single one.
> >> The latter is annoying, but the entry code needs to deal with it
> >> anyway. For example, any exception early in NMI is currently really
> >> bad. Non-IST exceptions very early in SYSCALL are fatal.
> >> Non-paranoid exceptions outside swapgs are fatal. Etc.
> >
> > Sure but that doesn't mean I'm happy with introducing new fragile path
> > like those. Especially as we have a way to fix without more overhead.
>
> I think my approach can work with even less overhead: there are fewer
> branches due to checking the previous state.
>
> >> > Also as long as there is at least one instruction between entry to the kernel
> >> > and context tracking noting it, there is a risk for an exception. Hence entry
> >> > code will never be atomic enough to avoid this kind of bugs.
> >>
> >> By that argument, we're doomed. Non-IST exceptions outside swapgs are fatal.
> >
> > Does that concern only error_entry() exceptions?
>
> Yes, but the set of paranoid_entry exceptions is shrinking. In -tip, there are:
>
> NMI: NMI is special and will call rcu_nmi_enter(). Nothing's changing here.
>
> MCE: Once upon a time, MCE was simply buggy. As of 4.0 (IIRC) MCE
> from kernel mode calls rcu_nmi_enter().
>
> BP: This is going away, I think. #BP should stop being special by 4.4.
>
> DB: That's the only weird case. Patches to prevent instruction
> breakpoints in entry code are already in -tip. The only thing left is
> kernel watchpoints, and we need to do something about that.
So now we can't set a breakpoint on syscall entry anymore?
I'm still nervous with all that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|