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:   Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:22:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>, daniel@iogearbox.net,
        guro@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix
Message-ID: <20181019082202.GB3121@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20181018005420.82993-1-namit@vmware.com>
 <20181018005420.82993-2-namit@vmware.com>
 <D247AB7C-2890-49CE-B102-163E5B368FC2@amacapital.net>
 <07255D2B-0243-4254-B62A-37050C44207E@vmware.com>
 <CALCETrXEG8OrMpB3VBS9RF41O_MwtPmXBazkdSGE0ohZmXDcBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <925F22EA-F8CB-4194-B96B-378409ED7918@vmware.com>
 <2626124E-7344-42F3-AD07-0BB34D62A9EE@amacapital.net>
 <6F1FD9DA-5E86-42A2-8EAF-05F5D70FE2EF@vmware.com>
 <CALCETrWjeqMs7Z6auStk9VGT9vAn+U5REGE+=TBv1Yh4kmOF3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181019050051.bs2kk4sagu7hpwxx@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181019050051.bs2kk4sagu7hpwxx@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:00:53PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Another example is __BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY(), which also uses
> > > preempt_enable_no_resched().
> > 
> > Alexei, I think this code is just wrong.
> 
> why 'just wrong' ?

Because you lost a preemption point, this is a no-no.

> 
> > Do you know why it uses
> > preempt_enable_no_resched()?
> 
> dont recall precisely.
> we could be preemptable at the point where macro is called.
> I think the goal of no_resched was to avoid adding scheduling points
> where they didn't exist before just because a prog ran for few nsec.
> May be Daniel or Roman remember.

No, you did the exact opposite, where there previously was a preemption,
you just ate it. The band saw didn't get stopped in time, you loose your
hand etc..