Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> * Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> [2021-09-22 11:01:12]:
>>
>>> Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>> > * Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> [2021-09-20 22:12:13]:
>>> >
>>> >> vcpu_is_preempted() can be used outside of preempt-disabled critical
>>> >> sections, yielding warnings such as:
>>> >>
>>> >> BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
>>> >> systemd-udevd/185
>>> >> caller is rwsem_spin_on_owner+0x1cc/0x2d0
>>> >> CPU: 1 PID: 185 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.15.0-rc2+ #33
>>> >> Call Trace:
>>> >> [c000000012907ac0] [c000000000aa30a8] dump_stack_lvl+0xac/0x108
>>> >> (unreliable)
>>> >> [c000000012907b00] [c000000001371f70]
>>> >> check_preemption_disabled+0x150/0x160
>>> >> [c000000012907b90] [c0000000001e0e8c] rwsem_spin_on_owner+0x1cc/0x2d0
>>> >> [c000000012907be0] [c0000000001e1408]
>>> >> rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x478/0x9a0
>>> >> [c000000012907ca0] [c000000000576cf4] filename_create+0x94/0x1e0
>>> >> [c000000012907d10] [c00000000057ac08] do_symlinkat+0x68/0x1a0
>>> >> [c000000012907d70] [c00000000057ae18] sys_symlink+0x58/0x70
>>> >> [c000000012907da0] [c00000000002e448] system_call_exception+0x198/0x3c0
>>> >> [c000000012907e10] [c00000000000c54c] system_call_common+0xec/0x250
>>> >>
>>> >> The result of vcpu_is_preempted() is always subject to invalidation by
>>> >> events inside and outside of Linux; it's just a best guess at a point in
>>> >> time. Use raw_smp_processor_id() to avoid such warnings.
>>> >
>>> > Typically smp_processor_id() and raw_smp_processor_id() except for the
>>> > CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't follow...
>>
>> I meant, Unless CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, smp_processor_id() is defined as
>> raw_processor_id().
>>
>>>
>>> > In the CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT case, smp_processor_id()
>>> > is actually debug_smp_processor_id(), which does all the checks.
>>>
>>> Yes, OK.
>>>
>>> > I believe these checks in debug_smp_processor_id() are only valid for x86
>>> > case (aka cases were they have __smp_processor_id() defined.)
>>>
>>> Hmm, I am under the impression that the checks in
>>> debug_smp_processor_id() are valid regardless of whether the arch
>>> overrides __smp_processor_id().
>>
>> From include/linux/smp.h
>>
>> /*
>> * Allow the architecture to differentiate between a stable and unstable
>> read.
>> * For example, x86 uses an IRQ-safe asm-volatile read for the unstable but a
>> * regular asm read for the stable.
>> */
>> #ifndef __smp_processor_id
>> #define __smp_processor_id(x) raw_smp_processor_id(x)
>> #endif
>>
>> As far as I see, only x86 has a definition of __smp_processor_id.
>> So for archs like Powerpc, __smp_processor_id(), is always
>> defined as raw_smp_processor_id(). Right?
>
> Sure, yes.
>
>> I would think debug_smp_processor_id() would be useful if
>> __smp_processor_id()
>> is different from raw_smp_processor_id(). Do note debug_smp_processor_id()
>> calls raw_smp_processor_id().
Agree.
> I do not think the utility of debug_smp_processor_id() is related to
> whether the arch defines __smp_processor_id().
>
>> Or can I understand how debug_smp_processor_id() is useful if
>> __smp_processor_id() is defined as raw_smp_processor_id()?
debug_smp_processor_id() is useful on powerpc, as well as other arches,
because it checks that we're in a context where the processor id won't
change out from under us.
eg. something like this is unsafe:
int counts[NR_CPUS];
int tmp, cpu;
cpu = smp_processor_id();
tmp = counts[cpu];
<- preempted here and migrated to another CPU
counts[cpu] = tmp + 1;
> So, for powerpc with DEBUG_PREEMPT unset, a call to smp_procesor_id()
> expands to __smp_processor_id() which expands to raw_smp_processor_id(),
> avoiding the preempt safety checks. This is working as intended.
>
> For powerpc with DEBUG_PREEMPT=y, a call to smp_processor_id() expands
> to the out of line call to debug_smp_processor_id(), which calls
> raw_smp_processor_id() and performs the checks, warning if called in an
> inappropriate context, as seen here. Also working as intended.
>
> AFAICT __smp_processor_id() is a performance/codegen-oriented hook, and
> not really related to the debug facility. Please see 9ed7d75b2f09d
> ("x86/percpu: Relax smp_processor_id()").
Yeah good find.
cheers
