On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 06:17:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> >> > wrote: >> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> * Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > * Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> This will let us sprinkle sanity checks around the kernel without >> > >>> >> making too much of a mess. >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> >> > >>> >> --- >> > >>> >> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 8 ++++++++ >> > >>> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/context_tracking.h >> > >>> >> b/include/linux/context_tracking.h >> > >>> >> index 2821838256b4..0fbea4b152e1 100644 >> > >>> >> --- a/include/linux/context_tracking.h >> > >>> >> +++ b/include/linux/context_tracking.h >> > >>> >> @@ -57,6 +57,13 @@ static inline void >> > >>> >> context_tracking_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev, >> > >>> >> if (context_tracking_is_enabled()) >> > >>> >> __context_tracking_task_switch(prev, next); >> > >>> >> } >> > >>> >> + >> > >>> >> +static inline void context_tracking_assert_state(enum ctx_state >> > >>> >> state) >> > >>> >> +{ >> > >>> >> + rcu_lockdep_assert(!context_tracking_is_enabled() || >> > >>> >> + this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state) == >> > >>> >> state, >> > >>> >> + "context tracking state was wrong"); >> > >>> >> +} >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Please don't introduce assert() style debug check interfaces! >> > >>> > >> > >>> > (And RCU should be fixed too I suspect.) >> > >>> > >> > >>> > They are absolutely horrible on the brain when mixed with WARN_ON() >> > >>> > interfaces, >> > >>> > which are the dominant runtime check interface in the kernel. >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Instead make it something like: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > #define ct_state() (this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state)) >> > >>> > >> > >>> > #define CT_WARN_ON(cond) \ >> > >>> > WARN_ON(context_tracking_is_enabled() && (cond)) >> > >>> > >> > >>> > and then the debug checks can be written as: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > CT_WARN_ON(ct_state() != CONTEXT_KERNEL); >> > >>> > >> > >>> > This is IMHO _far_ more readable than: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > context_tracking_assert_state(CONTEXT_KERNEL); >> > >>> > >> > >>> > ok? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > (Assuming people will accept 'ct/CT' as an abbreviation for context >> > >>> > tracking.) >> > >>> >> > >>> Hmm, ok I guess. The part I don't like is having ct_state() at all on >> > >>> non-context-tracking kernels -- it seems like it's asking for trouble. >> > >> >> > >> Well: >> > >> >> > >> - if # CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING is not se, then CT_WARN_ON() does >> > >> nothing. >> > >> >> > >> - if CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y, but !context_tracking_is_enabled(), >> > >> then >> > >> CT_WARN_ON() will evaluate 'cond', but won't calculate it. >> > >> >> > >> - only if CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING=y && context_tracking_is_enabled() >> > >> should we >> > >> get as far as ct_state() evaluation. >> > >> >> > >> so I'm not sure I see the problem you are seeing. >> > >> >> > >>> We could make CT_WARN_ON not even evaluate its argument if >> > >>> !CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING, but then we still have ct_state() returning >> > >>> garbage if >> > >>> !context_tracking_is_enabled(). >> > >> >> > >> My understanding is that if !context_tracking_is_enabled() then the >> > >> compiler >> > >> should not even try to evaluate the rest. This is why doing a NULL >> > >> pointer check >> > >> like this is safe: >> > > >> > > I'm fine with everything you just covered. My only objection is that, >> > > if ct_state() exists, then someone might call it outside CT_WARN_ON, >> > > in which case it will break on non-context-tracking setups. >> > >> > The more I think about it, the more I dislike ct_state(). We have >> > in_atomic(), which is already problematic because the return value >> > isn't reliable. ct_state(), if callable on non context-tracking >> > kernels, will also be unreliable. I prefer things like >> > lockdep_assert_held because they can't be misused. >> > >> > It would be far too easy for someone to read: >> > >> > CT_WARN_ON(ct_state() != CONTEXT_KERNEL); >> > >> > and add: >> > >> > if (ct_state() == CONTEXT_KERNEL) >> > do_something(); >> > >> > and that would be bad. >> >> But ct_state() could be made reliable: if !context_tracking_is_enabled() >> then it >> should return -1 or so. >> >> I.e. we could make it something like: >> >> enum ctx_state { >> CONTEXT_DISABLED = -1, >> CONTEXT_KERNEL = 0, >> CONTEXT_USER = 1, >> CONTEXT_GUEST = 2, >> } state; >> >> static inline enum ctx_state ct_state(void) >> { >> if (context_tracking_is_enabled()) >> return this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state)) >> >> return CONTEXT_DISABLED; >> } >> >> and then CT_WARN_ON() DTRT. > > That sounds good. With good layout of these things, the compiler should still > be > able to nop related code when context tracking is disabled.
Done. --Andy > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ingo -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/