From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: julien.thierry@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
christoffer.dall@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com,
suzuki.poulose@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:59:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <80c6b8cd-5ea9-7fa3-7a3b-8b3af686f737@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190417140058.GZ3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Hi Dave,
On 4/17/19 3:01 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:37:57PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On 16/04/2019 13:30, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 06:14:20PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Obtain the CPU FPSIMD context for use by the calling context.
>
> If we say something like "Claim ownership of the CPU FPSIMD context for
> use by the calling context", this may be easier to reference elsewhere
> (see below).
>
>>>> + *
>>>> + * The caller may freely modify FPSIMD context until *put_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>>>
>>> Nit: Why *? This makes it look a bit like get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>>> returns a pointer and you're saying something about dereferencing that
>>> pointer here.
>>
>> I tend to use * for wildcard. In this context it used to refers to both the
>> double-underscored version and the one without.
>
> Ah, right. * makes sense in general, but here it confused me.
>
>> I can use {,__}put_cpu_fpsimd_context() instead.
>
> Maybe, but the caller is not supposed to pair get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
> with __put_cpu_fpsimd_context().
>
> What if we just comment the non-underscore versions. The purpose of
> the __ versions is then relatively obvious without additional commenting.
I am happy with this solution as well.
[...]
>
>>>
>>>> + {
>>>> + printk("preemptible() = %u kernel_neon_busy = %u\n",
>>>> + preemptible(), __this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy));
>>>> + while (1);
>>>> + }
>>>> if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE)) {
>>>> if (system_supports_sve() && test_thread_flag(TIF_SVE)) {
>>>> @@ -352,7 +413,8 @@ static int __init sve_sysctl_init(void) { return 0; }
>>>> * task->thread.sve_state.
>>>> *
>>>> * Task can be a non-runnable task, or current. In the latter case,
>>>> - * softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
>>>> + * the FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_fpu_fpsimd_context()
>>>> + * before calling this function.
>>
>> I noticed you didn't comment about the usage of get_cpu_fpsimd_context here.
>> Do you want to add a WARN(..) in the function, or just using {,___} here?
>
> Partly because of things getting repetitive.
>
> WARN() is not free, so I suggest we don't add any new ones for now.
>
> From a comment point of view, if we just say something "the caller must
> have ownership of the cpu FPSIMD context" to refer back to the
> commenting for get_cpu_fpsimd_context(), that should cover the general
> case.
I am fine with this suggestion.
>>
>>>> * task->thread.sve_state must point to at least sve_state_size(task)
>>>> * bytes of allocated kernel memory.
>>>> * task->thread.uw.fpsimd_state must be up to date before calling this
>>>> @@ -379,7 +441,8 @@ static void fpsimd_to_sve(struct task_struct *task)
>>>> * task->thread.uw.fpsimd_state.
>>>> *
>>>> * Task can be a non-runnable task, or current. In the latter case,
>>>> - * softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
>>>> + * the FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_fpu_fpsimd_context()
>>>> + * before calling this function.
>>
>> Same question here.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> @@ -1012,7 +1079,8 @@ void fpsimd_signal_preserve_current_state(void)
>>>> /*
>>>> * Associate current's FPSIMD context with this cpu
>>>> - * Preemption must be disabled when calling this function.
>>>> + * The FPSIMD context should be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>>>> + * before calling this function.
>>
>> Same question here.
>
> Same for these.
>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Invalidate any task's FPSIMD state that is present on this cpu.
>>>> - * This function must be called with softirqs disabled.
>>>> + * The FPSIMD context should be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>>>> + * before calling this function.
>>>> */
>>>> static void fpsimd_flush_cpu_state(void)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -1125,19 +1194,18 @@ static void fpsimd_flush_cpu_state(void)
>>>> /*
>>>> * Save the FPSIMD state to memory and invalidate cpu view.
>>>> - * This function must be called with softirqs (and preemption) disabled.
>>>> + * This function must be called with preemption disabled.
>>>> */
>>>> void fpsimd_save_and_flush_cpu_state(void)
>>>> {
>>>> + __get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>>>> fpsimd_save();
>>>> fpsimd_flush_cpu_state();
>>>> + __put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>>>
>>> It may be cleaner to avoid the assumption about preemption already being
>>> disabled here. fpsimd_thread_switch() is rather a special case, but for
>>> this one is this really used on a hot path that justifies the assumption?
>>
>> It is currently only called with preemption disabled. So I thought it would
>> be better to avoid disabling preemption again. But I am happy to use the
>> non-__ version if you think it is better.
>
> Hmmm, this works either way. Since this is not fast-path and has an
> external caller, it might be worth adding a WARN_ON(preemptible()) here
> if you want to stick with the __ functions.
As it is not a fastpath, I will use the non-underscore version.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-23 10:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-12 17:14 [PATCH v2 0/3] " Julien Grall
2019-04-12 17:14 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/fpsimd: Remove the prototype for sve_flush_cpu_state() Julien Grall
2019-04-16 11:41 ` Dave Martin
2019-04-12 17:14 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arch/arm64: fpsimd: Introduce fpsimd_save_and_flush_cpu_state() and use it Julien Grall
2019-04-16 11:53 ` Dave Martin
2019-04-16 12:07 ` Julien Grall
2019-04-12 17:14 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state Julien Grall
2019-04-16 12:30 ` Dave Martin
2019-04-17 11:37 ` Julien Grall
2019-04-17 14:01 ` Dave Martin
2019-04-23 10:59 ` Julien Grall [this message]
2019-04-23 11:23 ` Dave Martin
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=80c6b8cd-5ea9-7fa3-7a3b-8b3af686f737@arm.com \
--to=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=julien.thierry@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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®