Srikar Dronamraju [off-list ref] writes:

* Nathan Lynch [off-list ref] [2021-09-22 11:01:12]:

quoted

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

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?

Sure, yes.

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().

I do not think the utility of debug_smp_processor_id() is related to
whether the arch defines __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()?

So, for powerpc with DEBUG_PREEMPT unset, a call to smp_procesor_id()
expands to __smp_processor_id() which expands to raw_smp_processor_id(),
avoiding the preempt safety checks. This is working as intended.

For powerpc with DEBUG_PREEMPT=y, a call to smp_processor_id() expands
to the out of line call to debug_smp_processor_id(), which calls
raw_smp_processor_id() and performs the checks, warning if called in an
inappropriate context, as seen here. Also working as intended.

AFAICT __smp_processor_id() is a performance/codegen-oriented hook, and
not really related to the debug facility. Please see 9ed7d75b2f09d
("x86/percpu: Relax smp_processor_id()").

quoted

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().

smp_processor_id() should always expand to debug_smp_processor_id() when
DEBUG_PREEMPT=y, regardless of whether the arch overrides
__smp_processor_id(). That is how I understand the intent of the code as
written.