Re: [PATCH v4] um: Enable preemption in UML

Peter Lafreniere Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:11:57 -0700

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:55, anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com wrote:
> 
> From: Anton Ivanov anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com
> 
> 
> Preemption requires saving/restoring FPU state. This patch
> adds support for it using GCC intrinsics.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anton Ivanov anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com
> 
> ---
> arch/um/Kconfig | 1 -
> arch/um/include/asm/fpu/api.h | 9 ++-
> arch/um/include/asm/processor-generic.h | 3 +
> arch/um/kernel/Makefile | 4 ++
> arch/um/kernel/fpu.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/um/kernel/irq.c | 2 +
> 6 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/um/kernel/fpu.c
> 
> diff --git a/arch/um/Kconfig b/arch/um/Kconfig
> index b5e179360534..603f5fd82293 100644
> --- a/arch/um/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/um/Kconfig
> @@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ config UML
> select ARCH_HAS_KCOV
> select ARCH_HAS_STRNCPY_FROM_USER
> select ARCH_HAS_STRNLEN_USER
> - select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT
> select HAVE_ARCH_AUDITSYSCALL
> select HAVE_ARCH_KASAN if X86_64
> select HAVE_ARCH_KASAN_VMALLOC if HAVE_ARCH_KASAN
> diff --git a/arch/um/include/asm/fpu/api.h b/arch/um/include/asm/fpu/api.h
> index 71bfd9ef3938..9e7680bf48f0 100644
> --- a/arch/um/include/asm/fpu/api.h
> +++ b/arch/um/include/asm/fpu/api.h
> @@ -4,12 +4,15 @@
> 
> /* Copyright (c) 2020 Cambridge Greys Ltd
> * Copyright (c) 2020 Red Hat Inc.
> - * A set of "dummy" defines to allow the direct inclusion
> - * of x86 optimized copy, xor, etc routines into the
> - * UML code tree. */
> + /
> 
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY)
> +extern void kernel_fpu_begin(void);
> +extern void kernel_fpu_end(void);
> +#else
> #define kernel_fpu_begin() (void)0
> #define kernel_fpu_end() (void)0
> +#endif
> 
> static inline bool irq_fpu_usable(void)
> {
> diff --git a/arch/um/include/asm/processor-generic.h 
> b/arch/um/include/asm/processor-generic.h
> index 7414154b8e9a..c08e8c5b0249 100644
> --- a/arch/um/include/asm/processor-generic.h
> +++ b/arch/um/include/asm/processor-generic.h
> @@ -44,6 +44,9 @@ struct thread_struct {
> } cb;
> } u;
> } request;
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY)
> + u8 fpu[2048] __aligned(64); / Intel docs require xsave/xrestore area to be 
> aligned to 64 bytes /
> +#endif
> };
> 
> #define INIT_THREAD \
> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/Makefile b/arch/um/kernel/Makefile
> index 811188be954c..c616e884a488 100644
> --- a/arch/um/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -26,9 +26,13 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OF) += dtb.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK) += early_printk.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_STACKTRACE) += stacktrace.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_PCI_IOMAP) += ioport.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PREEMPT) += fpu.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY) += fpu.o
> 
> USER_OBJS := config.o
> 
> +CFLAGS_fpu.o += -mxsave -mxsaveopt
> +
> include $(srctree)/arch/um/scripts/Makefile.rules
> 
> targets := config.c config.tmp capflags.c
> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/fpu.c b/arch/um/kernel/fpu.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..346c07236185
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/fpu.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/
> + * Copyright (C) 2023 Cambridge Greys Ltd
> + * Copyright (C) 2023 Red Hat Inc
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
> 
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> 
> +#include <asm/fpu/api.h>
> 
> +#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> 
> +
> +/*
> + * The critical section between kernel_fpu_begin() and kernel_fpu_end()
> + * is non-reentrant. It is the caller's responsibility to avoid reentrance.
> + /
> +
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, in_kernel_fpu);
> +
> +/ UML and driver code it pulls out of the x86 tree knows about 387 features
> + * up to and including AVX512. TILE, etc are not yet supported.
> + */


Tiny nit, but you use two different styles of block comments here.
You did the same with the copyright declarations.

> +
> +#define KNOWN_387_FEATURES 0xFF
> +
> +
> +void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
> +{
> + preempt_disable();
> +
> + WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu));
> +
> + this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, true);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT)))
> + __builtin_ia32_xsaveopt64(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> 
> + else {
> + if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVE)))
> + __builtin_ia32_xsave64(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> 
> + else
> + __builtin_ia32_fxsave64(&current->thread.fpu);
> 
> + }
> +#else
> + if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT)))
> + __builtin_ia32_xsaveopt(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> 
> + else {
> + if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVE)))
> + __builtin_ia32_xsave(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> 
> + else
> + __builtin_ia32_fxsave(&current->thread.fpu);
> 
> + }
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernel_fpu_begin);
> +
> +void kernel_fpu_end(void)
> +{
> + WARN_ON(!this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu));
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVE)))
> + __builtin_ia32_xrstor64(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> 
> + else
> + __builtin_ia32_fxrstor64(&current->thread.fpu);
> 
> +#else
> + if (likely(cpu_has(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_XSAVE)))
> + __builtin_ia32_xrstor(&current->thread.fpu, KNOWN_387_FEATURES);
> 
> + else
> + __builtin_ia32_fxrstor(&current->thread.fpu);
> 
> +#endif
> + this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, false);
> +
> + preempt_enable();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernel_fpu_end);
> +
> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/irq.c b/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
> index 635d44606bfe..c02525da45df 100644
> --- a/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/irq.c
> @@ -195,7 +195,9 @@ static void _sigio_handler(struct uml_pt_regs *regs,
> 
> void sigio_handler(int sig, struct siginfo *unused_si, struct uml_pt_regs 
> *regs)
> {
> + preempt_disable();
> _sigio_handler(regs, irqs_suspended);
> + preempt_enable();
> }
> 
> static struct irq_entry *get_irq_entry_by_fd(int fd)
> --
> 2.30.2

I'm happy with this as it is. The issue with AVX registers being clobbered
when xsave isn't supported is unlikely to matter in practice, and can
be fixed with a patch afterwards.

Reviewed-by: Peter Lafreniere <pe...@n8pjl.ca>

Cheers,
Peter


_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um

Re: [PATCH v4] um: Enable preemption in UML

Reply via email to