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;
From:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc:     mark.rutland@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, chenhuacai@kernel.org, kernel@xen0n.name,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        jgross@suse.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, kys@microsoft.com,
        haiyangz@microsoft.com, wei.liu@kernel.org, decui@microsoft.com,
        rafael@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, longman@redhat.com,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, pmladek@suse.com, senozhatsky@chromium.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, john.ogness@linutronix.de,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, jstultz@google.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/13] arm64/arch_timer: Provide noinstr
 sched_clock_read() functions
In-Reply-To: <20230519102715.435618812@infradead.org>
References: <20230519102058.581557770@infradead.org>
 <20230519102715.435618812@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 17:40:47 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmho7m9ptrk.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 19/05/23 12:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> With the intent to provide local_clock_noinstr(), a variant of
> local_clock() that's safe to be called from noinstr code (with the
> assumption that any such code will already be non-preemptible),
> prepare for things by providing a noinstr sched_clock_read() function.
>
> Specifically, preempt_enable_*() calls out to schedule(), which upsets
> noinstr validation efforts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h  |    8 ----
>  drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c |   60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
> @@ -88,13 +88,7 @@ static inline notrace u64 arch_timer_rea
>
>  #define arch_timer_reg_read_stable(reg)					\
>       ({								\
> -		u64 _val;						\
> -									\
> -		preempt_disable_notrace();				\
> -		_val = erratum_handler(read_ ## reg)();			\
> -		preempt_enable_notrace();				\
> -									\
> -		_val;							\
> +		erratum_handler(read_ ## reg)();			\
>       })
>
>  /*
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> @@ -191,22 +191,40 @@ u32 arch_timer_reg_read(int access, enum
>       return val;
>  }
>
> -static notrace u64 arch_counter_get_cntpct_stable(void)
> +static noinstr u64 _arch_counter_get_cntpct_stable(void)
>  {
>       return __arch_counter_get_cntpct_stable();
>  }
>

I tripped over the underscores when reviewing this :( This must be
getting close to the symbol length limit, but could we give this a helpful
prefix or suffix? raw_* or *_noinstr?

> @@ -1074,6 +1092,13 @@ struct arch_timer_kvm_info *arch_timer_g
>
>  static void __init arch_counter_register(unsigned type)
>  {
> +	/*
> +	 * Default to cp15 based access because arm64 uses this function for
> +	 * sched_clock() before DT is probed and the cp15 method is guaranteed
> +	 * to exist on arm64. arm doesn't use this before DT is probed so even
> +	 * if we don't have the cp15 accessors we won't have a problem.
> +	 */
> +	u64 (*scr)(void) = arch_counter_get_cntvct;

So this bit sent me on a little spelunking session :-)

From a control flow perspective the initialization isn't required, but then
I looked into the comment and found it comes from the
arch_timer_read_counter() definition... Which itself doesn't get used by
sched_clock() until the sched_clock_register() below!

So AFAICT that comment was true as of

  220069945b29 ("clocksource: arch_timer: Add support for memory mapped timers")

but not after a commit that came 2 months later:

  65cd4f6c99c1 ("arch_timer: Move to generic sched_clock framework")

which IIUC made arm/arm64 follow the default approach of using the
jiffy-based sched_clock() before probing DT/ACPI and registering a "proper"
sched_clock.

All of that to say: the comment about arch_timer_read_counter() vs early
sched_clock() doesn't apply anymore, but I think we need to keep its
initalization around for stuff like get_cycles(). This initialization here
should be OK to put to the bin, though.