From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933768AbcCISK3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:10:29 -0500
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:45324 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933326AbcCISKU (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:10:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:10:03 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        spg_linux_kernel@amd.com, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/delay: Do not use cpu_tss in preemptible ctxt in
 delay_mwaitx()
Message-ID: <20160309181003.GF6564@pd.tnic>
References: <1457523473-3285-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <CALCETrVGaPASf=r7Z3aSQ1aM7EmHfT1y5QBK6Gss-M=++D+wUw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrVGaPASf=r7Z3aSQ1aM7EmHfT1y5QBK6Gss-M=++D+wUw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 09:56:39AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2016 3:38 AM, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> >
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> >
> > So Andy had a good idea about using a cacheline-aligned, seldomly used
> > per-cpu var as the MONITORX target but we can't use it in preemptible
> > context. The first simple idea I have is to disable preemption around us
> > dereffing it.
> 
> What's the actual problem?  Is it the preempt warnings and, if so,
> would raw_cpu_ptr fix it?

Yeah, it is the warning:

[    1.565876] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: udevd/312
[    1.566123] caller is delay_mwaitx+0x40/0xa0

and yes, I think so. I don't think we care about being in preemptible
context since we're going idle anyway and doesn't matter which cpu_tss
we touch.

Yeah, I'll use raw_cpu_ptr...

> It may pay to move it into the loop, though.

... and won't need to do that.

Thanks for the idea.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.