Re: [PATCHv2 1/5] arm64/entry-common: push the judgement of nmi ahead
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: 2021-09-30 13:33:04
Also in:
lkml
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 11:39:55PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:53:06PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:28:33PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote:quoted
In enter_el1_irq_or_nmi(), it can be the case which NMI interrupts an irq, which makes the condition !interrupts_enabled(regs) fail to detect the NMI. This will cause a mistaken account for irq.Sorry about the confusing word "account", it should be "lockdep/rcu/.."quoted
Can you please explain this in more detail? It's not clear which specific case you mean when you say "NMI interrupts an irq", as that could mean a number of distinct scenarios. AFAICT, if we're in an IRQ handler (with NMIs unmasked), and an NMI causes a new exception we'll do the right thing. So either I'm missing a subtlety or you're describing a different scenario.. Note that the entry code is only trying to distinguish between: a) This exception is *definitely* an NMI (because regular interrupts were masked). b) This exception is *either* and IRQ or an NMI (and this *cannot* be distinguished until we acknowledge the interrupt), so we treat it as an IRQ for now.b) is the aim. At the entry, enter_el1_irq_or_nmi() -> enter_from_kernel_mode()->rcu_irq_enter()/rcu_irq_enter_check_tick() etc. While at irqchip level, gic_handle_irq()->gic_handle_nmi()->nmi_enter(), which does not call rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(). So it is not proper to "treat it as an IRQ for now"
I'm struggling to understand the problem here. What is "not proper", and why? Do you think there's a correctness problem, or that we're doing more work than necessary? If you could give a specific example of a problem, it would really help. I'm aware that we do more work than strictly necessary when we take a pNMI from a context with IRQs enabled, but that's how we'd intended this to work, as it's vastly simpler to manage the state that way. Unless there's a real problem with that approach I'd prefer to leave it as-is. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel