mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>, <oleg@redhat.com>,
	<sstabellini@kernel.org>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <luto@kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	<juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	<dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	<bsegall@google.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>, <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	<kees@kernel.org>, <wad@chromium.org>,
	<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	<masahiroy@kernel.org>, <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	<aliceryhl@google.com>, <rppt@kernel.org>, <xur@google.com>,
	<paulmck@kernel.org>, <arnd@arndb.de>, <mbenes@suse.cz>,
	<puranjay@kernel.org>, <pcc@google.com>, <ardb@kernel.org>,
	<sudeep.holla@arm.com>, <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	<rafael@kernel.org>, <liuwei09@cestc.cn>, <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
	<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>, <liaochang1@huawei.com>,
	<kristina.martsenko@arm.com>, <ptosi@google.com>,
	<broonie@kernel.org>, <thiago.bauermann@linaro.org>,
	<kevin.brodsky@arm.com>, <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
	<liuyuntao12@huawei.com>, <leobras@redhat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v5 11/22] arm64: entry: Switch to generic IRQ entry
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:32:58 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b54bae8c-5106-41aa-60ab-27146660a16e@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z6nv9SLi0za8tE69@J2N7QTR9R3>



On 2025/2/10 20:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 06:17:33PM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> Currently, x86, Riscv, Loongarch use the generic entry. Convert arm64
>> to use the generic entry infrastructure from kernel/entry/*.
>> The generic entry makes maintainers' work easier and codes
>> more elegant.
>>
>> Switch arm64 to generic IRQ entry first, which removed duplicate 100+
>> LOC, and it will switch to generic entry completely later. Switch to
>> generic entry in two steps according to Mark's suggestion will make
>> it easier to review.
>>
>> The changes are below:
>>  - Remove *enter_from/exit_to_kernel_mode(), and wrap with generic
>>    irqentry_enter/exit(). Also remove *enter_from/exit_to_user_mode(),
>>    and wrap with generic enter_from/exit_to_user_mode() because they
>>    are exactly the same so far.
>>
>>  - Remove arm64_enter/exit_nmi() and use generic irqentry_nmi_enter/exit()
>>    because they're exactly the same, so the temporary arm64 version
>>    irqentry_state can also be removed.
>>
>>  - Remove PREEMPT_DYNAMIC code, as generic entry do the same thing
>>    if arm64 implement arch_irqentry_exit_need_resched().
>>
>> Suggested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                    |   1 +
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/entry-common.h |  64 ++++++
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/preempt.h      |   6 -
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c      | 307 ++++++--------------------
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c            |   3 +-
>>  5 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 252 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/entry-common.h
> 
> Superficially this looks nice, but to be clear I have *not* looked at
> this in great detail; minor comments below.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +static inline void arch_exit_to_user_mode_prepare(struct pt_regs *regs,
>> +						  unsigned long ti_work)
>> +{
>> +	local_daif_mask();
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define arch_exit_to_user_mode_prepare arch_exit_to_user_mode_prepare
> 
> I'm a little worried that this may be fragile having been hidden in the
> common code, as it's not clear exactly when this will occur during the
> return sequence, and the ordering requirements could easily be broken by
> refactoring there.
> 
> I suspect we'll want to pull this later in the arm64 exit sequence so
> that we can have it explicit in entry-common.c.

Yes, this key function is hidden in generic entry code and is not easy
to clear and see when it is executed. But placing it directly in
entry-common.c in arm64 may change the order in which lockdep_sys_exit()
and local_daif_mask() are called, it's not clear what the potential
impact is.

Before:
   exit_to_user_mode_prepare()
      ...
      -> local_daif_mask()
      -> lockdep_sys_exit()


arm64_exit_to_user_mode()
  ...
  -> exit_to_user_mode_prepare()
     -> lockdep_sys_exit()
  -> local_daif_mask()

> 
> [...]
> 
>> index 14ac6fdb872b..84b6628647c7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/cache.h>
>>  #include <linux/compat.h>
>>  #include <linux/errno.h>
>> +#include <linux/irq-entry-common.h>
>>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>  #include <linux/signal.h>
>>  #include <linux/freezer.h>
>> @@ -1603,7 +1604,7 @@ static void handle_signal(struct ksignal *ksig, struct pt_regs *regs)
>>   * the kernel can handle, and then we build all the user-level signal handling
>>   * stack-frames in one go after that.
>>   */
>> -void do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +void arch_do_signal_or_restart(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  {
>>  	unsigned long continue_addr = 0, restart_addr = 0;
>>  	int retval = 0;
> 
> Is the expected semantic the same here, or is those more than just a
> name change?

Yes, the expected semantic is the same here, they both handle
_TIF_SIGPENDING and _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL thread flags before
exit to user.

In arm64 the code call sequence is:

  exit_to_user_mode()
     -> exit_to_user_mode_prepare()
        -> do_notify_resume(regs, flags)
           -> if (thread_flags & (_TIF_SIGPENDING | _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL))
                 do_signal(regs)

In generic entry code, the logic is the same:

  exit_to_user_mode_prepare()
      -> exit_to_user_mode_loop()
          -> if (ti_work & (_TIF_SIGPENDING | _TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL))
                 arch_do_signal_or_restart(regs)

> 
> Mark.
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2025-02-11 11:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-06 10:17 [PATCH -next v5 00/22] arm64: entry: Convert to generic entry Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 01/22] arm64: ptrace: Replace interrupts_enabled() with regs_irqs_disabled() Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:04   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 02/22] arm64: entry: Refactor the entry and exit for exceptions from EL1 Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:08   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 03/22] arm64: entry: Move arm64_preempt_schedule_irq() into __exit_to_kernel_mode() Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:26   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 04/22] arm64: entry: Rework arm64_preempt_schedule_irq() Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:33   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 05/22] arm64: entry: Use preempt_count() and need_resched() helper Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:40   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 06/22] arm64: entry: Expand the need_irq_preemption() macro ahead Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:48   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 07/22] arm64: entry: preempt_schedule_irq() only if PREEMPTION enabled Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:52   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 08/22] arm64: entry: Use different helpers to check resched for PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 11:54   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 09/22] entry: Split generic entry into irq and syscall Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 12:04   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 10/22] entry: Add arch_irqentry_exit_need_resched() for arm64 Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 12:05   ` Mark Rutland
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 11/22] arm64: entry: Switch to generic IRQ entry Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 12:24   ` Mark Rutland
2025-02-11 11:32     ` Jinjie Ruan [this message]
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 12/22] arm64/ptrace: Split report_syscall() function Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 13/22] arm64/ptrace: Refactor syscall_trace_enter() Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 14/22] arm64/ptrace: Refactor syscall_trace_exit() Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 15/22] arm64/ptrace: Refator el0_svc_common() Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 16/22] entry: Make syscall_exit_to_user_mode_prepare() not static Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 17/22] arm64/ptrace: Return early for ptrace_report_syscall_entry() error Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 18/22] arm64/ptrace: Expand secure_computing() in place Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 19/22] arm64/ptrace: Use syscall_get_arguments() heleper Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 20/22] entry: Add arch_ptrace_report_syscall_entry/exit() Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 21/22] entry: Add has_syscall_work() helepr Jinjie Ruan
2024-12-06 10:17 ` [PATCH -next v5 22/22] arm64: entry: Convert to generic entry Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-08  1:15 ` [PATCH -next v5 00/22] " Jinjie Ruan
2025-02-10 12:30   ` Mark Rutland
2025-02-11 11:43     ` Jinjie Ruan

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=b54bae8c-5106-41aa-60ab-27146660a16e@huawei.com \
    --to=ruanjinjie@huawei.com \
    --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aliceryhl@google.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=dwmw@amazon.co.uk \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
    --cc=kristina.martsenko@arm.com \
    --cc=leobras@redhat.com \
    --cc=liaochang1@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=liuwei09@cestc.cn \
    --cc=liuyuntao12@huawei.com \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
    --cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=pcc@google.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ptosi@google.com \
    --cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thiago.bauermann@linaro.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    --cc=xur@google.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®