On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:30:58PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> cpu_enable_ssbs() is called via stop_machine() as part of the cpu_enable
> callback. A spin lock is used to ensure the hook is registered before
> the rest of the callback is executed.
>
> On -RT spin_lock() may sleep. However, all the callees in stop_machine()
> are expected to not sleep. Therefore a raw_spin_lock() is required here.
>
> Given this is already done under stop_machine() and the work done under
> the lock is quite small, the latency should not increase too much.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
>
> ---
>
> It was noticed when looking at the current use of spin_lock in
> arch/arm64. I don't have a platform calling that callback, so I have
> hacked the code to reproduce the error and check it is now fixed.
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index ca27e08e3d8a..2a7159fda3ce 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -1194,14 +1194,14 @@ static struct undef_hook ssbs_emulation_hook = {
> static void cpu_enable_ssbs(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused)
> {
> static bool undef_hook_registered = false;
> - static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(hook_lock);
> + static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(hook_lock);
>
> - spin_lock(&hook_lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&hook_lock);
> if (!undef_hook_registered) {
> register_undef_hook(&ssbs_emulation_hook);
> undef_hook_registered = true;
> }
> - spin_unlock(&hook_lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&hook_lock);
Makes sense to me. We could probably avoid the lock entirely if we wanted
to (via atomic_dec_if_positive), but I'm not sure it's really worth it.
Will
