Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <42bfd82c-b3fb-c942-d6f2-ae5adec90a26@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Jul 2022 21:38:20 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: support HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220707110511.52129-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <20220707110511.52129-3-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <CAK8P3a1-rL391dp33D5r+SgQ+L0u7Neta_-DZoZL=+c1zPtNQg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1-rL391dp33D5r+SgQ+L0u7Neta_-DZoZL=+c1zPtNQg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/7/7 20:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 1:05 PM Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since softirqs are handled on the per-CPU IRQ stack,
>> let's support HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK which causes
>> the core code to invoke __do_softirq() directly without
>> going through do_softirq_own_stack().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
> 
> I think the idea is right, but the extra function pointer adds more complexity
> than necessary:
> 
>>   static __always_inline void __el1_irq(struct pt_regs *regs,
>>                                        void (*handler)(struct pt_regs *))
>>   {
>>          enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
>>
>> -       irq_enter_rcu();
>> -       do_interrupt_handler(regs, handler);
>> -       irq_exit_rcu();
>> +       do_interrupt_handler(regs, handler, irq_handler);
>>
>>          arm64_preempt_schedule_irq();
>>
>> @@ -699,9 +711,7 @@ static void noinstr el0_interrupt(struct pt_regs *regs,
>>          if (regs->pc & BIT(55))
>>                  arm64_apply_bp_hardening();
>>
>> -       irq_enter_rcu();
>> -       do_interrupt_handler(regs, handler);
>> -       irq_exit_rcu();
>> +       do_interrupt_handler(regs, handler, irq_handler);
>>
>>          exit_to_user_mode(regs);
>>   }
> 
> Would it be possible to instead pull out the call_on_irq_stack() so these
> two functions are instead called on the IRQ stack already?

Hi,

Do you mean to modify call_on_irq_stack()?

I have tried doing a conditional jump inside call_on_irq_stack() like
this:

--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
@@ -888,13 +888,22 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)

         /* Move to the new stack and call the function there */
         mov     sp, x16
-       blr     x1
+
+       cmp     x2, #1
+       b.eq    99f
+
+       blr     x1
+       b       999f
+
+99:    bl      irq_enter_rcu
+       blr     x1
+       bl      irq_exit_rcu

         /*
          * Restore the SP from the FP, and restore the FP and LR from 
the frame
          * record.
          */
-       mov     sp, x29
+999:   mov     sp, x29
         ldp     x29, x30, [sp], #16
  #ifdef CONFIG_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
         ldp     scs_sp, xzr, [sp], #16

But this also requires a new parameter in do_interrupt_handler.

I also considered implementing call_on_irq_stack() for nmi and irq
separately, but later think it's unnecessary.

> 
>          Arnd

Thanks,
Qi