Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-128065-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 21:40:08 +0800
From: Dawei Li <dawei.li@shingroup.cn>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: will@kernel.org, xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com, renyu.zj@linux.alibaba.com,
	yangyicong@hisilicon.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com,
	andersson@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] perf: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from
 stack
Message-ID: <190FE91C35AB9AE8+ZgwKuORh3VzTkfeJ@centos8>
References: <20240402105610.1695644-1-dawei.li@shingroup.cn>
 <ZgvoMunpbaE-x3jV@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZgvoMunpbaE-x3jV@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:shingroup.cn:qybglogicsvrgz:qybglogicsvrgz5a-1

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the quick review.

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:12:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 06:56:01PM +0800, Dawei Li wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This series try to eliminate direct cpumask var allocation from stack
> > for perf subsystem.
> > 
> > Direct/explicit allocation of cpumask on stack could be dangerous since
> > it can lead to stack overflow for systems with big NR_CPUS or
> > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y.
> > 
> > For arm64, it's more urgent since commit 3fbd56f0e7c1 ("ARM64: Dynamically
> > allocate cpumasks and increase supported CPUs to 512").
> > 
> > It's sort of a pattern that almost every cpumask var in perf subystem
> > occurs in teardown callback of cpuhp. In which case, if dynamic
> > allocation failed(which is unlikely), we choose return 0 rather than
> > -ENOMEM to caller cuz:
> > @teardown is not supposed to fail and if it does, system crashes:
> 
> .. but we've left the system in an incorrect state, so that makes no sense.
> 
> As I commented on the first patch, NAK to dynamically allocating cpumasks in
> the CPUHP callbacks. Please allocate the necessry cpumasks up-front when we
> probe the PMU. At that time we can handle an allocation failure by cleaning up
> and failing to probe the PMU, and then the CPUHP callbacks don't need to
> allocate memory to offline a CPU...

Agreed that dynamically allocation in callbacks lead to inconsistency
to system.

My (original)alternative plan is simple but ugly, just make cpumask var
_static_ and add extra static lock to protect it.

The only difference between solution above and your proposal is static/
dynamic alloction. CPUHP's teardown cb is supposed to run in targetted
cpuhp thread for most cases, and it's racy. Even the cpumask var is
wrapped in dynamically allocated struct xxx_pmu, it's still shareable
between different threads/contexts and needs proper protection.

Simple as this(_untested_):

diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c b/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
index 7ef9c7e4836b..fa89c3db4d7d 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
@@ -1950,18 +1950,24 @@ static int arm_cmn_pmu_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu, struct hlist_node *cpuhp_no
        struct arm_cmn *cmn;
        unsigned int target;
        int node;
-       cpumask_t mask;
+       static cpumask_t mask;
+       static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cpumask_lock);

        cmn = hlist_entry_safe(cpuhp_node, struct arm_cmn, cpuhp_node);
        if (cpu != cmn->cpu)
                return 0;

+       spin_lock(&cpumask_lock);
+
        node = dev_to_node(cmn->dev);
        if (cpumask_and(&mask, cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask) &&
            cpumask_andnot(&mask, &mask, cpumask_of(cpu)))
                target = cpumask_any(&mask);
        else
                target = cpumask_any_but(cpu_online_mask, cpu);
+
+       spin_unlock(&cpumask_lock);
+
        if (target < nr_cpu_ids)
                arm_cmn_migrate(cmn, target);
        return 0;

And yes, static allocation is evil :) 


Thanks,

    Dawei

> 
> Also, for the titles it'd be better to say something like "avoid placing
> cpumasks on the stack", because "explicit cpumask var allocation" sounds like
> the use of alloc_cpumask_var().

Sound great! I will update it.

> 
> Mark.
> 
> > 
> > static int cpuhp_issue_call(int cpu, enum cpuhp_state state, bool bringup,
> >                             struct hlist_node *node)
> > {
> >         struct cpuhp_step *sp = cpuhp_get_step(state);
> >         int ret;
> > 
> >         /*
> >          * If there's nothing to do, we done.
> >          * Relies on the union for multi_instance.
> >          */
> >         if (cpuhp_step_empty(bringup, sp))
> >                 return 0;
> >         /*
> >          * The non AP bound callbacks can fail on bringup. On teardown
> >          * e.g. module removal we crash for now.
> >          */
> > 	#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >         if (cpuhp_is_ap_state(state))
> >                 ret = cpuhp_invoke_ap_callback(cpu, state, bringup, node);
> >         else
> >                 ret = cpuhp_invoke_callback(cpu, state, bringup, node,
> > 		NULL);
> > 	#else
> >         ret = cpuhp_invoke_callback(cpu, state, bringup, node, NULL);
> > 	#endif
> >         BUG_ON(ret && !bringup);
> >         return ret;
> > }
> > 
> > Dawei Li (9):
> >   perf/alibaba_uncore_drw: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from
> >     stack
> >   perf/arm-cmn: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> >   perf/arm_cspmu: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> >   perf/arm_dsu: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> >   perf/dwc_pcie: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> >   perf/hisi_pcie: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> >   perf/hisi_uncore: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> >   perf/qcom_l2: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> >   perf/thunder_x2: Avoid explicit cpumask var allocation from stack
> > 
> >  drivers/perf/alibaba_uncore_drw_pmu.c    | 13 +++++++++----
> >  drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c                   | 13 +++++++++----
> >  drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c       | 13 +++++++++----
> >  drivers/perf/arm_dsu_pmu.c               | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> >  drivers/perf/dwc_pcie_pmu.c              | 17 +++++++++++------
> >  drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_pcie_pmu.c   | 15 ++++++++++-----
> >  drivers/perf/hisilicon/hisi_uncore_pmu.c | 13 +++++++++----
> >  drivers/perf/qcom_l2_pmu.c               | 15 ++++++++++-----
> >  drivers/perf/thunderx2_pmu.c             | 20 ++++++++++++--------
> >  9 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> >     Dawei
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.27.0
> > 
>