lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next for tip:x86/pti] x86/tlb: drop unneeded local vars in enable_l1d_flush_for_task()
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:00:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30 2020 at 19:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Also, that preempt_disable() in there doesn't actually do anything.
> > Worse, preempt_disable(); for_each_cpu(); is an anti-pattern. It mixes
> > static_cpu_has() and boot_cpu_has() in the same bloody condition and has
> > a pointless ret variable.

Also, I forgot to add, it accesses ->cpus_mask without the proper
locking, so it could be reading intermediate state from whatever cpumask
operation that's in progress.

> I absolutely agree and I really missed it when looking at it before
> merging. cpus_read_lock()/unlock() is the right thing to do if at all.
>
> > It's shoddy code, that only works if you align the planets right. We
> > really shouldn't provide interfaces that are this bad.
> >
> > It's correct operation is only by accident.
>
> True :(
>
> I understand Balbirs problem and it makes some sense to provide a
> solution. We can:
>
> 1) reject set_affinity() if the task has that flush muck enabled
> and user space tries to move it to a SMT enabled core
>
> 2) disable the muck if if detects that it is runs on a SMT enabled
> core suddenly (hotplug says hello)
>
> This one is nasty because there is no feedback to user space
> about the wreckage.

That's and, right, not or. because 1) deals with sched_setffinity()
and 2) deals wit hotplug.

Now 1) requires an arch hook in sched_setaffinity(), something I'm not
keen on providing, once we provide it, who knows what strange and
wonderful things archs will dream up.

And 2) also happens on hot-un-plug, when the task's affinity gets
forced because it became empty. No user feedback there either, and
information is lost.


I suppose we can do 2) but send a signal. That would cover all cases and
keep it in arch code. But yes, that's pretty terrible too.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-30 20:37    [W:0.052 / U:9.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site