lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64/fpsimd: Don't disable softirq when touching FPSIMD/SVE state
From
Date
Hi Dave,

On 16/04/2019 13:30, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 06:14:20PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> When the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON, some part of
>> the kernel may be able to use FPSIMD/SVE. This is for instance the case
>> for crypto code.
>>
>> Any use of FPSIMD/SVE in the kernel are clearly marked by using the
>> function kernel_neon_{begin, end}. Furthermore, this can only be used
>> when may_use_simd() returns true.
>>
>> The current implementation of may_use_simd() allows softirq to use
>> FPSIMD/SVE unless it is currently in used (i.e kernel_neon_busy is true).
>
> Nit: "in used" -> "in use"
>
>> When in used, softirqs usually fallback to a software method.
>
> Likewise.
>
> Nit: "fallback" -> "fall back"
>
>> At the moment, as a softirq may use FPSIMD/SVE, softirqs are disabled
>> when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context. This has the drawback to disable
>> all softirqs even if they are not using FPSIMD/SVE.
>>
>> As a softirq should not rely on been able to use simd at a given time,
>> there are limited reason to keep softirq disabled when touching the
>
> The implication is not totally clear to me here. Maybe write something
> like
>
> "Since a softirq is supposed to check may_use_simd() anyway before
> attempting to use FPSIMD/SVE, there is limited reason to keep softirq
> disabled when touching the FPSIMD/SVE context [...]"

I will update the commit message.

>
>> FPSIMD/SVE context. Instead, we can only disable preemption and tell
>
> I'd put "just" or "simply" instead of "only" here.
>
>> the NEON unit is currently in use.
>
> Maybe "mark the FPSIMD/SVE context as in use by setting the
> CPU's kernel_neon_busy flag".

Sounds better as this flag does not protect only the hardware but some part of
context that resides in memory.

>
>> This patch introduces two new helpers {get, put}_cpu_fpsimd_context to
>> mark the area using FPSIMD/SVE context and use them in replacement of
>
> uses
>
>> local_bh_{disable, enable}. The functions kernel_neon_{begin, end} are
>> also re-implemented to use the new helpers.
>>
>> Additionally, this patch introduced a double-underscored version of each
>
> introduces
>
>> helper that can be used when preemption is disabled. This avoid to
>> disable/enable preemption for again and helps documenting places where
>
> The wording seems a bit mangled here?

Oops yes.

> Also, these are not for general use, so maybe say something like
>
> "For use in the fpsimd_thread_switch(), which is a critical path where
> preemption is already disabled, double-underscored versions of the
> helpers are provided to avoid disabling preemption again."
>
> (I'm assuming here that we don't need to use these elsewhere -- see
> other comments.)

I will comment on this below.

>
>> context can only be used by one instance.
>>
>> This patch has been benchmarked on Linux 5.1-rc4 with defconfig.
>>
>> On Juno2:
>> * hackbench 100 process 1000 (10 times)
>> * .7% quicker
>>
>> On ThunderX 2:
>> * hackbench 1000 process 1000 (20 times)
>> * 3.4% quicker
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
>>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Remove spurious call to kernel_neon_enable in kernel_neon_begin.
>> - Rename kernel_neon_{enable, disable} to {get, put}_cpu_fpsimd_context
>> - Introduce a double-underscore version of the helpers for case
>> where preemption is already disabled
>> - Introduce have_cpu_fpsimd_context() and use it in WARN_ON(...)
>> - Surround more places in the code with the new helpers
>> - Rework the comments
>> - Update the commit message with the benchmark result
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h | 4 +-
>> arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h
>> index 6495cc51246f..94c0dac508aa 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/simd.h
>> @@ -15,10 +15,10 @@
>> #include <linux/preempt.h>
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON
>> -
>> DECLARE_PER_CPU(bool, kernel_neon_busy);
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KERNEL_MODE_NEON
>> +
>> /*
>> * may_use_simd - whether it is allowable at this time to issue SIMD
>> * instructions or access the SIMD register file
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
>> index 9e4e4b6acd93..761d848fb26d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
>> @@ -92,7 +92,8 @@
>> * To prevent this from racing with the manipulation of the task's FPSIMD state
>> * from task context and thereby corrupting the state, it is necessary to
>> * protect any manipulation of a task's fpsimd_state or TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE
>> - * flag with local_bh_disable() unless softirqs are already masked.
>> + * flag with kernel_neon_{disable, enable}. This will still allow softirqs to
>
> These names don't match the code now.
>
>> + * run but prevent them to use FPSIMD.
>> *
>> * For a certain task, the sequence may look something like this:
>> * - the task gets scheduled in; if both the task's fpsimd_cpu field
>> @@ -150,6 +151,58 @@ extern void __percpu *efi_sve_state;
>>
>> #endif /* ! CONFIG_ARM64_SVE */
>>
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, kernel_neon_busy);
>> +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(kernel_neon_busy);
>
> This feels mis-named now. Maybe "fpsimd_context_busy" would be a better
> name?

Make sense. I will update it.

>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Obtain the CPU FPSIMD context for use by the calling context.
>> + *
>> + * 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.

I can use {,__}put_cpu_fpsimd_context() instead.

>
>> + * is called.
>> + *
>> + * The double-underscore version must only be called if you know the task
>> + * can't be preempted.
>> + *
>> + * __get_cpu_fpsimd_context() *must* be in pair with __put_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>> + * get_cpu_fpsimd_context() *must* be in pair with put_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>
> "in pair" -> "paired with"?

Sure.

>
> I'd move each of these comments to be next to the function it applies
> to.

Do you mean on top of {,__}put_cpu_ or {,__}get_cpu?

>
>> + */
>> +static void __get_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
>> +{
>> + bool busy = __this_cpu_xchg(kernel_neon_busy, true);
>> +
>
> I don't mind whether there is a blank line here or not, but please make
> it consistent with __put_cpu_fpsimd_context().

I will modify __put_cpu_fpsimd_context() to add a newline.

>
>> + WARN_ON(busy);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void get_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
>> +{
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + __get_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Release the CPU FPSIMD context.
>> + *
>> + * Must be called from a context in which *get_cpu_fpsimd_context() was
>
> Nit: Why *?

Same as above, I can update to use {,__} instead of *.

>
>> + * previously called, with no call to *put_cpu_fpsimd_context() in the
>> + * meantime.
>> + */
>> +static void __put_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
>> +{
>> + bool busy = __this_cpu_xchg(kernel_neon_busy, false);
>> + WARN_ON(!busy); /* No matching get_cpu_fpsimd_context()? */
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void put_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
>> +{
>> + __put_cpu_fpsimd_context();
>> + preempt_enable();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool have_cpu_fpsimd_context(void)
>> +{
>> + return (!preemptible() && __this_cpu_read(kernel_neon_busy));
>
> Nit: Redundant ()
>
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Call __sve_free() directly only if you know task can't be scheduled
>> * or preempted.
>> @@ -221,11 +274,12 @@ static void sve_free(struct task_struct *task)
>> * thread_struct is known to be up to date, when preparing to enter
>> * userspace.
>> *
>> - * Softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
>> + * The FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>
> or __get_cpu_fpsimd_context()? Since this is effectively documented by
> the WARN_ON() and this is a local function anyway, maybe it would be
> simpler just to drop this comment here?

I am fine with that.

>
>> + * before calling this function.
>> */
>> static void task_fpsimd_load(void)
>> {
>> - WARN_ON(!in_softirq() && !irqs_disabled());
>> + WARN_ON(!have_cpu_fpsimd_context());
>>
>> if (system_supports_sve() && test_thread_flag(TIF_SVE))
>> sve_load_state(sve_pffr(&current->thread),
>> @@ -239,15 +293,22 @@ static void task_fpsimd_load(void)
>> * Ensure FPSIMD/SVE storage in memory for the loaded context is up to
>> * date with respect to the CPU registers.
>> *
>> - * Softirqs (and preemption) must be disabled.
>> + * The FPSIMD context must be acquired with get_cpu_fpsimd_context()
>
> Likewise.

Ditto.

>
>> + * before calling this function.
>> */
>> static void fpsimd_save(void)
>> {
>> struct fpsimd_last_state_struct const *last =
>> this_cpu_ptr(&fpsimd_last_state);
>> /* set by fpsimd_bind_task_to_cpu() or fpsimd_bind_state_to_cpu() */
>> + WARN_ON(!have_cpu_fpsimd_context());
>>
>> - WARN_ON(!in_softirq() && !irqs_disabled());
>> + if ( !have_cpu_fpsimd_context() )
>
> Nit: Redundant whitespace around expression.

This hunk should actually be dropped. I was using for debugging and forgot to
remove it before sending the series :/.

>
>> + {
>> + 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?

>> * 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.

>> /*
>> * 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.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-17 13:39    [W:0.092 / U:4.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site