From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86: Inconsistent xAPIC synchronization in arch_irq_work_raise?
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:34:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52DE8592.9090807@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52DE8009.9010902@siemens.com>
On 2014-01-21 15:11, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-01-21 15:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 02:02:06PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> while trying to plug a race in the CPU hotplug code on xAPIC systems, I
>>> was analyzing IPI transmission patterns. The handlers in
>>> arch/x86/include/asm/ipi.h first wait for ICR, then send. In contrast,
>>> arch_irq_work_raise sends the self-IPI directly and then waits. This
>>> looks inconsistent. Is it intended?
>>>
>>> BTW, the races are in wakeup_secondary_cpu_via_init and
>>> wakeup_secondary_cpu_via_nmi (lacking IRQ disable around ICR accesses).
>>> There we also send first, then wait for completion. But I guess that is
>>> due to the code originally only being used during boot. Will send fixes
>>> for those once the sync pattern is clear to me.
>>
>> Could be I had no clue what I was doing and copy/pasted the code until
>> it compiled and ran.
>>
>> In fact, I've got no clue what an ICR is.
>
> Old xAPIC requires you to only send IPIs, when the APIC signals it is
> done with sending the previous one. Therefore we wait for availability
> in the other IPI transmission services before writing to ICR.
>
> OK, then I will write a separate patch for arch_irq_work_raise to switch
> the ordering.
Hmm, missed that we do have synchronization already via
apic->send_IPI_self -> default_send_IPI_self ->
__default_send_IPI_shortcut. So the closing wait would only be relevant
if we need to settle the APIC because we may have interrupted a
wait_icr_idle + write_icr sequence. But shouldnt those sequences be
atomic (except for the problematic wakeup_secondary path)?
Still confused: What is the official locking model around wait_icr_idle,
write(ICR), and also write(IRC2)? IRQ disable around ICR2+ICR accesses
and preempt_disable around wait + write? That is also important to fix
the SMP boot-up code properly.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-21 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-21 13:02 Jan Kiszka
2014-01-21 14:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 14:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-01-21 14:11 ` Jan Kiszka
2014-01-21 14:34 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2014-01-21 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 23:20 ` Huang Ying
2014-01-22 18:43 ` Andi Kleen
2014-01-23 18:51 ` Jan Kiszka
2014-01-23 19:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-23 19:22 ` Andi Kleen
2014-01-23 19:51 ` Jan Kiszka
2014-01-23 20:17 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52DE8592.9090807@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome