Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 06:36:25 +0300
From:   Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp: introduce kick_active_cpus_sync()
Message-ID: <20180404033625.gkn4q7kb2xf6d6mo@yury-thinkpad>
References: <20180325175004.28162-1-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20180325175004.28162-3-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20180327102116.GA2464@arm.com>
 <20180401111108.mudkiewzn33sifvk@yury-thinkpad>
 <20180403134832.2cdae64uwuot6ryz@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180403134832.2cdae64uwuot6ryz@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: cavium.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2018 03:36:40.2714 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a22427af-9a11-49d4-ba92-08d599dd47b6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 711e4ccf-2e9b-4bcf-a551-4094005b6194
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR07MB2898
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Mark,

Thank you for review.

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:48:32PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Yury,
> 
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:11:08PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Flush I-cache if CPU is in extended quiescent state
> > + */
> 
> This comment is misleading. An ISB doesn't touch the I-cache; it forces
> a context synchronization event.
> 
> > +	.macro	isb_if_eqs
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_TINY_RCU
> > +	bl	rcu_is_watching
> > +	tst	w0, #0xff
> > +	b.ne	1f
> 
> The TST+B.NE can be a CBNZ:
> 
> 	bl	rcu_is_watching
> 	cbnz	x0, 1f
> 	isb
> 1:
> 
> > +	/* Pairs with aarch64_insn_patch_text for EQS CPUs. */
> > +	isb
> > +1:
> > +#endif
> > +	.endm
> > +
> >  el0_sync_invalid:
> >  	inv_entry 0, BAD_SYNC
> >  ENDPROC(el0_sync_invalid)
> > @@ -840,8 +861,10 @@ el0_svc:
> >  	mov	wsc_nr, #__NR_syscalls
> >  el0_svc_naked:					// compat entry point
> >  	stp	x0, xscno, [sp, #S_ORIG_X0]	// save the original x0 and syscall number
> > +	isb_if_eqs
> >  	enable_dbg_and_irq
> > -	ct_user_exit 1
> > +	ct_user_exit
> 
> I don't think this is safe. here we issue the ISB *before* exiting a
> quiesecent state, so I think we can race with another CPU that calls
> kick_all_active_cpus_sync, e.g.
> 
> 	CPU0				CPU1
> 
> 	ISB
> 					patch_some_text()
> 					kick_all_active_cpus_sync()
> 	ct_user_exit
> 
> 	// not synchronized!
> 	use_of_patched_text()
> 
> ... and therefore the ISB has no effect, which could be disasterous.
> 
> I believe we need the ISB *after* we transition into a non-quiescent
> state, so that we can't possibly miss a context synchronization event.
 
I decided to put isb() in entry because there's a chance that there will
be patched code prior to exiting a quiescent state. But after some
headscratching, I think it's safe. I'll do like you suggested here.

Thanks,
Yury