Thread (7 messages) 7 messages, 4 authors, 2020-01-29

Re: [PATCH] arm64: Set SSBS for user threads while creation

From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-01-29 16:13:48
Also in: linux-arm-msm, lkml
Subsystem: arm64 port (aarch64 architecture), the rest · Maintainers: Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Linus Torvalds

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 05:18:53PM +0530, Srinivas Ramana wrote:
On 1/2/2020 11:31 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 06:32:26PM +0530, Srinivas Ramana wrote:
quoted
Current SSBS implementation takes care of setting the
SSBS bit in start_thread() for user threads. While this works
for tasks launched with fork/clone followed by execve, for cases
where userspace would just call fork (eg, Java applications) this
leaves the SSBS bit unset. This results in performance
regression for such tasks.

It is understood that commit cbdf8a189a66 ("arm64: Force SSBS
on context switch") masks this issue, but that was done for a
different reason where heterogeneous CPUs(both SSBS supported
and unsupported) are present. It is appropriate to take care
of the SSBS bit for all threads while creation itself.

Fixes: 8f04e8e6e29c ("arm64: ssbd: Add support for PSTATE.SSBS rather than trapping to EL3")
Signed-off-by: Srinivas Ramana <redacted>
I suppose the parent process cleared SSBS explicitly. Isn't the child
Actually we observe that parent(in case of android, zygote that launches the
app) does have SSBS bit set. However child doesn't have the bit set.
On which SoC? Your commit message talks about heterogeneous systems (wrt
SSBS) as though they don't apply in your case. Could you provide us with
a reproducer?
quoted
after fork() supposed to be nearly identical to the parent? If we did as
you suggest, someone else might complain that SSBS has been set in the
child after fork().
I am also wondering why would a userspace process clear SSBS bit loosing the
performance benefit.
I guess it could happen during sigreturn if the signal handler wasn't
careful about preserving bits in pstate, although it doesn't feel like
something you'd regularly run into.

But hang on a sec -- it looks like the context switch logic in
cbdf8a189a66 actually does the wrong thing for systems where all of the
CPUs implement SSBS. I don't think it explains the behaviour you're seeing,
but I do think it could end up in situations where SSBS is unexpectedly
*set*.

Diff below.

Will

--->8
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
index bbb0f0c145f6..e38284c9fb7b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
@@ -466,6 +466,13 @@ static void ssbs_thread_switch(struct task_struct *next)
 	if (unlikely(next->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
 		return;
 
+	/*
+	 * If all CPUs implement the SSBS instructions, then we just
+	 * need to context-switch the PSTATE field.
+	 */
+	if (cpu_have_feature(cpu_feature(SSBS)))
+		return;
+
 	/* If the mitigation is enabled, then we leave SSBS clear. */
 	if ((arm64_get_ssbd_state() == ARM64_SSBD_FORCE_ENABLE) ||
 	    test_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_SSBD))
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help