Re: [PATCH] powerpc/paravirt: correct preempt debug splat in vcpu_is_preempted()
From: Srikar Dronamraju <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-22 16:34:54
* Nathan Lynch [off-list ref] [2021-09-22 11:01:12]:
Srikar Dronamraju [off-list ref] writes:quoted
* Nathan Lynch [off-list ref] [2021-09-20 22:12:13]:quoted
vcpu_is_preempted() can be used outside of preempt-disabled critical sections, yielding warnings such as: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: systemd-udevd/185 caller is rwsem_spin_on_owner+0x1cc/0x2d0 CPU: 1 PID: 185 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.15.0-rc2+ #33 Call Trace: [c000000012907ac0] [c000000000aa30a8] dump_stack_lvl+0xac/0x108 (unreliable) [c000000012907b00] [c000000001371f70] check_preemption_disabled+0x150/0x160 [c000000012907b90] [c0000000001e0e8c] rwsem_spin_on_owner+0x1cc/0x2d0 [c000000012907be0] [c0000000001e1408] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x478/0x9a0 [c000000012907ca0] [c000000000576cf4] filename_create+0x94/0x1e0 [c000000012907d10] [c00000000057ac08] do_symlinkat+0x68/0x1a0 [c000000012907d70] [c00000000057ae18] sys_symlink+0x58/0x70 [c000000012907da0] [c00000000002e448] system_call_exception+0x198/0x3c0 [c000000012907e10] [c00000000000c54c] system_call_common+0xec/0x250 The result of vcpu_is_preempted() is always subject to invalidation by events inside and outside of Linux; it's just a best guess at a point in time. Use raw_smp_processor_id() to avoid such warnings.Typically smp_processor_id() and raw_smp_processor_id() except for the CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT.Sorry, I don't follow...
I meant, Unless CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, smp_processor_id() is defined as raw_processor_id().
quoted
In the CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT case, smp_processor_id() is actually debug_smp_processor_id(), which does all the checks.Yes, OK.quoted
I believe these checks in debug_smp_processor_id() are only valid for x86 case (aka cases were they have __smp_processor_id() defined.)Hmm, I am under the impression that the checks in debug_smp_processor_id() are valid regardless of whether the arch overrides __smp_processor_id().
From include/linux/smp.h /* * Allow the architecture to differentiate between a stable and unstable read. * For example, x86 uses an IRQ-safe asm-volatile read for the unstable but a * regular asm read for the stable. */ #ifndef __smp_processor_id #define __smp_processor_id(x) raw_smp_processor_id(x) #endif As far as I see, only x86 has a definition of __smp_processor_id. So for archs like Powerpc, __smp_processor_id(), is always defined as raw_smp_processor_id(). Right? I would think debug_smp_processor_id() would be useful if __smp_processor_id() is different from raw_smp_processor_id(). Do note debug_smp_processor_id() calls raw_smp_processor_id(). Or can I understand how debug_smp_processor_id() is useful if __smp_processor_id() is defined as raw_smp_processor_id()?
I think the stack trace here correctly identifies an incorrect use of smp_processor_id(), and the call site needs to be changed. Do you disagree?
Yes the stack_trace shows that debug_smp_processor_id(). However what I want to understand is why should we even call debug_smp_processor_id(), when our __smp_processor_id() is defined as raw_smp_processor_id(). -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju