From: "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>
To: "Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
"Prashant Singh" <singhpra@juniper.net>
Cc: "Jeremy Kerr" <jk@ozlabs.org>,
"Clark Williams" <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Shuah Khan" <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>,
"Steve McIntyre" <93sam@debian.org>,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] efivarfs: add nostatfs mount option to skip QueryVariableInfo()
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2026 14:22:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <59d5452c-42b1-4784-a593-5e549a2a0f12@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260929074312.v3jT8uel@linutronix.de>
Hi Sebastian,
Thanks for taking a look.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2026, at 09:43, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-09-28 13:34:45 [-0700], Prashant Singh wrote:
>> QueryVariableInfo() is an EFI runtime service that, on some firmware,
>> takes tens of milliseconds and runs with preemption disabled, stalling
>> the CPU that services it. efivarfs_statfs() calls it (rate-limited since
>> commit b2326338dc68 ("efivarfs: Rate limit statfs() handler")) to report
>> the variable-store used/available capacity, so any statfs(2) -- e.g.
>> every "df" -- can inject that stall into unrelated latency-sensitive
>> workloads on the same CPU.
>>
>> Add a negatable "nostatfs" mount option: with nostatfs, statfs(2) skips
>> QueryVariableInfo() and reports zero used/available; with statfs it
>> reports the capacity as before. It defaults to nostatfs on
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT so real-time kernels do not take the stall out of the
>> box, but statfs can be passed there to force reporting back on -- e.g.
>> for tools such as fwupd that need the efivars free space to update Secure
>> Boot key databases.
>>
>> The option can also be toggled on a live mount via remount, so reporting
>> can be enabled only for the duration of a firmware update without
>> unmounting the boot-time efivarfs mount:
>>
>> mount -o remount,statfs /sys/firmware/efi/efivars # reporting on
>> mount -o remount,nostatfs /sys/firmware/efi/efivars # reporting off
>>
>> Tested on an Intel Xeon E5-2628L v4, 6.12 kernel, via
>> "strace -T -e trace=statfs df" on the efivarfs mount.
>
> This until the end looks extremely verbose. Even if that statfs takes
> ages, that important part is that it does so with disables preemption.
> There has been also the introduction of the efi_runtime workqueue which
> can be pinned to a single CPU. I guess this doesn't work for you or the
> EFI firmware takes all other CPUs down until the all completes.
>
Yeah the most severe issue is that entering SMM requires a rendez-vous
of all the cores, and so whether preemption is enabled or not is
actually kind of irrelevant, given that all the other cores just
disappear.
...
>> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/efivarfs.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/efivarfs.rst
>> index f646c3f0980f..cd81ee84115b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/efivarfs.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/efivarfs.rst
>> @@ -37,6 +37,22 @@ accidentally.
>> |4_bytes_of_attributes + efivar_data|
>> +-----------------------------------+
>>
>> +Mount options
>> +=============
>> +
>> +statfs / nostatfs
>> + Control whether ``statfs(2)`` reports the variable-store used/available
>> + capacity. Obtaining it requires the ``QueryVariableInfo()`` EFI runtime
>> + service, which on some firmware takes tens of milliseconds and runs with
>> + preemption disabled, stalling the calling CPU. With ``nostatfs`` the call
>> + is skipped and ``statfs(2)`` reports zero. The default is to report,
>> + except on ``CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT`` where it defaults to ``nostatfs``; pass
>> + ``statfs`` there to force reporting back on (e.g. for tools such as fwupd
>> + that need the free space for firmware updates). The option can also be
>> + flipped on a live mount with ``mount -o remount,statfs`` /
>> + ``mount -o remount,nostatfs``, so reporting can be enabled only for the
>> + duration of a firmware update without unmounting efivarfs.
>
> could this be, I don't know something smaller not including the
> commandline where I would expect that people know how to use it.
>
> ===================
> =========================================================
> (no)statfs Control whether ``statfs(2)`` reports the variable-store
> used/ available. Disabling it skips the EFI runtime
> service call, which might block the CPU for a few milliseconds,
> reporting 0 for used and capacity. Enabled by default on
> PREEMPT_RT.
> ===================
> =========================================================
>
+1
> It might make sense to add this knob to
> Documentation/core-api/real-time/hardware.rst.
> I am not sure yet but slowly we are getting more knobs that I have
> expected.
>
>> +
>> *See also:*
>>
>> - Documentation/admin-guide/acpi/ssdt-overlays.rst
>> diff --git a/fs/efivarfs/internal.h b/fs/efivarfs/internal.h
>> index f913b6824289..0cb053884b4b 100644
>> --- a/fs/efivarfs/internal.h
>> +++ b/fs/efivarfs/internal.h
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>> struct efivarfs_mount_opts {
>> kuid_t uid;
>> kgid_t gid;
>> + bool nostatfs; /* skip QueryVariableInfo() in statfs() */
> Here and below you add a comment to every change you make. What about
> focusing on the important parts, that deserve an explanation why a
> change has been made. For instance why nostatfs has the READ_ONCE/
> WRITE_ONCE accessors and sometimes it does not.
>
AIUI the READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE were added because Sashiko warned about
potential KCSAN splats? It would be nice to mention that.
In any case, KCSAN is runtime instrumentation, and efi_reboot_required()
is only called after all other CPUs have been brought down. So if anything,
this should just wrap the read on the reboot path in a data_race() so
that we don't trigger any instrumentation inadvertently on the way down.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-29 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-28 20:34 Prashant Singh
2026-09-28 20:47 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-29 6:32 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-29 7:43 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-09-29 12:22 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2026-09-29 15:14 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-09-30 1:35 ` Prashant Singh
2026-09-30 6:09 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-30 6:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-10-01 1:20 ` Prashant Singh
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=59d5452c-42b1-4784-a593-5e549a2a0f12@app.fastmail.com \
--to=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=93sam@debian.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=jk@ozlabs.org \
--cc=lgoncalv@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=singhpra@juniper.net \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®