Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-62351-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:44:06 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>,
	"Naik, Avadhut" <avadnaik@amd.com>,
	"Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@intel.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/MCE: Add command line option to extend MCE
 Records pool
Message-ID: <47901422-ac07-47db-bf44-3f4353e92b1d@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <7a4945b0-322a-444e-a0ca-860a062a49c3@amd.com>
 <20240209205111.GGZcaQP1gb6C9m0WZB@fat_crate.local>
 <5DB0FF8D-C6DA-45DC-B287-201A9BF48BDA@alien8.de>
 <75ddf61d-8dda-47fa-9da0-24221feb22a2@amd.com>
 <20240211111455.GAZcisL09LeFPWa2EI@fat_crate.local>
 <b5904910-ed58-405f-9425-566383b48068@amd.com>
 <SJ1PR11MB6083CF3400AD2F2047D65E17FC482@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <34b19db5-bd72-457c-9b6a-c2089f6be83c@amd.com>
 <SJ1PR11MB6083E7E11F6C7BCC8C6C7F21FC482@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20240212201038.GNZcp7PuIqIJndpDM9@fat_crate.local>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240212201038.GNZcp7PuIqIJndpDM9@fat_crate.local>

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:10:38PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 07:49:43PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > Yes. The question is whether a #MC that come in the middle of list_rcu_add()
> > can safely do list_for_each_entry_rcu() on the same list.
> > 
> > RCU is black magic ... maybe it can do this? Adding Paul.
> 
> Yeah, the list traversal might be ok as this is what that list_add does
> - you can't encounter an inconsistent list - but we still take
>  a spinlock on addition and the commit which added it:
> 
> 7f184275aa30 ("lib, Make gen_pool memory allocator lockless")
> 
> says
> 
>     The lockless operation only works if there is enough memory available.
>     If new memory is added to the pool a lock has to be still taken.  So
>     any user relying on locklessness has to ensure that sufficient memory
>     is preallocated.
> 
> and this is exactly what we're doing - adding new memory.

Is the #MC adding new memory, or is the interrupted context adding new
memory?

> So, until we're absolutely sure that it is ok to interrupt a context
> holding a spinlock with a #MC which is non-maskable, I don't think we
> wanna do this.

If it is the #MC adding new memory, agreed.

If the #MC is simply traversing the list, and the interrupted context
was in the midst of adding a new element, this should be no worse than
some other CPU traversing the list while this CPU is in the midst of
adding a new element.

Or am I missing a turn in here somewhere?

							Thanx, Paul