lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel parameter
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:13:48AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:30:56PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > Don't you have some horrible races between the two logical
> > processors on the same core as they both try to set/clear the
> > MSR that is shared at the core level?
>
> Yes and no. Yes, there will be races, but they won't be fatal in any way.
>
> - Only the split-lock bit is supported by the kernel, so there isn't a
> risk of corrupting other bits as both threads will rewrite the current
> hardware value.
>
> - Toggling of split-lock is only done in "warn" mode. Worst case
> scenario of a race is that a misbehaving task will generate multiple
> #AC exceptions on the same instruction. And this race will only occur
> if both siblings are running tasks that generate split-lock #ACs, e.g.
> a race where sibling threads are writing different values will only
> occur if CPUx is disabling split-lock after an #AC and CPUy is
> re-enabling split-lock after *its* previous task generated an #AC.
>
> - Transitioning between modes at runtime isn't supported and disabling
> is tracked per task, so hardware will always reach a steady state that
> matches the configured mode. I.e. split-lock is guaranteed to be
> enabled in hardware once all _TIF_SLD threads have been scheduled out.

We should probably include this analysis in the commit
comment. Maybe a comment or two in the code too to note
that the races are mostly harmless and guaranteed to end
quickly.

-Tony

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-02 19:21    [W:0.086 / U:2.440 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site