Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-167799-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 23:00:18 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
CC: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, "Kirill A.
 Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, Vlastimil Babka
	<vbabka@suse.cz>, Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>, Chao Gao
	<chao.gao@intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Hossain, Md Iqbal"
	<md.iqbal.hossain@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efi/unaccepted: touch soft lockup during memory accept
Message-ID: <ZjT8Agb5vUNUxuVo@chenyu5-mobl2>
References: <20240411004907.649394-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com>
 <ZiZ2yUI09QIrYr/4@chenyu5-mobl2>
 <CAMj1kXGdRkiLh+3DePZuejaqEphyP=gN6bnK6v08ueP3MP40EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXHLGMXtD-Ad_1TKPmkrvppeNNtKUn-G5q4jr8ZKOab18Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53exjhamp57x7brn2b5jxdpbzc3amv5i646gmgitnvwjgdwfrd@5v5qifom5tez>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53exjhamp57x7brn2b5jxdpbzc3amv5i646gmgitnvwjgdwfrd@5v5qifom5tez>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?rw+kd1JfWFPAevJ6xkICZk38LupEuz2kdziDs60sIRQ2l5T/dGVqEwzRJ49U?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ssg0S76Vfgh+R3jGy3qI2kSDQ3eiB8i+xnJC+pMu/+X55IJpA4C1UBAmznsS?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?10LkGAbxQDDfyOUkerPoQFknj+zr8unp+Xpl5hnNeOswwZVJ4skFKtXIC6Hq?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?DnYAGVzZCPbG54vPmvUmijfoBiCpUTlDPhIE2yE1YiqBP/tUgK4Ds1bCvktr?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?CDknQcCaj3II1WQLtXdkh4GiBr+4YMU5bFd7nhXWO1+ehk5mIxyFr9llTW6x?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Yt2RscuLXOSHSlG30Kbq4chqXBuQmS21ke+N/9IvBeor+xjddDScTvLV3gCD?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?F8jcO+0KAB6NFUw7Kb249kXyu09GyD4UoFK1BIKBA/xW5a+CCaWNag6e6CXi?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Hn+wQs4xN5iPd8zI515R5lAapHpPeH50RlVkB36lvAx6ADF8Oazj1hLiC4aM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?TPfDGcLdnd5alaiMC5cfwm51cyCOTCqQL+eWUJiCQ82ExbLG/iQrQ/fdq3st?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?/Ihx8+LcNwf2buQZrmbvtaNjn0wvWHmuEpLf2o7g8x9Yju7KTfNfL/RfExZh?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?j2WYRbBVSOmJdomWl4dCFiR3XrN1dL2vBM98COse0AFIqCCJ54bv7jBxztDX?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?cz+LWPjNSjHMsjxndPcgoXNf/3mVEa8aG4TbFkyLi8AEDqERL1woR/PAbKcK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?RsbpmNxSAcZTuDOPNG43omElPzkac3trccAV+LBTKintw1j0bHmKVVW4t1oB?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?3JPhanG+eW3CsYbVUSgo6iq27RIqwRF1Q67bMmognHqfac6rbUDQwIKSogFu?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?fDiKaxa0Bx9bsa41Ki8Z/M9LycMTx5QptvND9kIuATJiCHN9meGuBDn0GCD8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?XsGPSEiSJQmlaaKffmuU+UKNdK+TsXfCEP2KIvTyVg1IJdIPPDlG1Bl3Uoz8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?M2XtKek8n11uFklQJ+gVPlZlMSDElIUuTfqKChOH0cuXilBws6C2/TTzkhrf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?AZINL7eluU2sjullQZItc0M5inLMBYMA1Kd6lFGNm6jcL74D2Yw2aPS91glT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?3IQTCeKzoLFQ9SJIOnRcuPqWymOSu6czcBNcGCNF8BcklpxhEsZ21a7kYkJj?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?oFWBKwd7uISxDCA55fI0ommOxcfIYV+jI8F4BuQfb1NPYKL4ONJ1evtoZDLC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ETxHYEgHMSPuoXI3S+aEL0PX1yVSbtmq3ML7KLECnZaqwg61jQpZ0bS0eNlT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Jiqb+SLgCjqJ1bKRmCOvmn5gQL+cZz5t2ROKagcQ8eBrrFZJPz5PmPVmOFY8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?omtuIXD1TSZstmlMptE+hec9Gl36Ge4qzWJcFiTgUdMn8h09NVO0kjh33r+/?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?jf8WnTQ6aQNCqTQHU5TiOTGKEpTyCO8FKgURX8n3w/l4YYmeKeZjPbKtgynq?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Orths3sBFWhVLgJmxsafJIsYlonlO3nwWPGUDigA9r1+bNb7694IPHoyzkru?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?12EQBPlhsmCZNxPBELyHGtyXTsggoCcJXCl35IN2YQPtTzN5qyzdd5uU/1XM?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?LhJ/sbuJmIdN7p89lFYNIye5Bv7vPGM0oxTNF9iA?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 562c0bf2-1c3d-4f3c-c192-08dc6b81c54e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM4PR11MB6020.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2024 15:00:28.7045
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: Prp3v7CvHpDbCo/mSjmMgN0Yu+Lwjr/tMdvQ70QfPu+IfgAdOEbqdXsnrt41t8vcAD2j+n0uFpGOeksiLfCMeA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR11MB8203
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com

On 2024-05-03 at 16:47:49 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 12:31:12PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 19:12, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 at 16:40, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2024-04-11 at 08:49:07 +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > > > > Commit 50e782a86c98 ("efi/unaccepted: Fix soft lockups caused
> > > > > by parallel memory acceptance") has released the spinlock so
> > > > > other CPUs can do memory acceptance in parallel and not
> > > > > triggers softlockup on other CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > However the softlock up was intermittent shown up if the memory
> > > > > of the TD guest is large, and the timeout of softlockup is set
> > > > > to 1 second.
> > > > >
> > > > > The symptom is:
> > > > > When the local irq is enabled at the end of accept_memory(),
> > > > > the softlockup detects that the watchdog on single CPU has
> > > > > not been fed for a while. That is to say, even other CPUs
> > > > > will not be blocked by spinlock, the current CPU might be
> > > > > stunk with local irq disabled for a while, which hurts not
> > > > > only nmi watchdog but also softlockup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chao Gao pointed out that the memory accept could be time
> > > > > costly and there was similar report before. Thus to avoid
> > > > > any softlocup detection during this stage, give the
> > > > > softlockup a flag to skip the timeout check at the end of
> > > > > accept_memory(), by invoking touch_softlockup_watchdog().
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 50e782a86c98 ("efi/unaccepted: Fix soft lockups caused by parallel memory acceptance")
> > > > > Reported-by: "Hossain, Md Iqbal" <md.iqbal.hossain@intel.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > v1 -> v2:
> > > > >        Refine the commit log and add fixes tag/reviewed-by tag from Kirill.
> > > >
> > > > Gently pinging about this patch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Queued up in efi/urgent now, thanks.
> > 
> > OK, I was about to send this patch to Linus (and I am still going to).
> > 
> > However, I do wonder if sprinkling touch_softlockup_watchdog() left
> > and right is really the right solution here.
> > 
> > Looking at the backtrace, this is a page fault originating in user
> > space. So why do we end up calling into the hypervisor to accept a
> > chunk of memory large enough to trigger the softlockup watchdog? Or is
> > the hypercall simply taking a disproportionate amount of time?
> 
> Note that softlockup timeout was set to 1 second to trigger this. So this
> is exaggerated case.
> 
> > And AIUI, touch_softlockup_watchdog() hides the fact that we are
> > hogging the CPU for way too long - is there any way we can at least
> > yield the CPU on this condition?
> 
> Not really. There's no magic entity that handles accept. It is done by
> CPU.
> 
> There's a feature in pipeline that makes page accept interruptable in TDX
> guest. It can help some cases. But if ended up in this codepath from
> non-preemptable context, it won't help.
>

Is it possible to enable the local irq for a little while after
each arch_accept_memory(phys_start, phys_end),
and even split the [phys_start,phys_end] to smaller regions?
so the watchdog can be fed on time/tick is normal. But currently
the softlock fed at the end seems to be more easier to implement.

thanks,
Chenyu