Alex,
On Mon, Nov 23 2020 at 17:57, Alex Belits wrote:
> Kernel entry and exit functions for task isolation are added to context
> tracking and common entry points. Common handling of pending work on exit
> to userspace now processes isolation breaking, cleanup and start.
Again: You fail to explain the rationale and just explain what the patch
is doing. I can see what the patch is doing from the patch itself.
> ---
> include/linux/hardirq.h | 2 ++
> include/linux/sched.h | 2 ++
> kernel/context_tracking.c | 5 +++++
> kernel/entry/common.c | 10 +++++++++-
> kernel/irq/irqdesc.c | 5 +++++
At least 3 different subsystems, which means this again failed to be
split into seperate patches.
> extern void synchronize_irq(unsigned int irq);
> @@ -115,6 +116,7 @@ extern void rcu_nmi_exit(void);
> do { \
> lockdep_off(); \
> arch_nmi_enter(); \
> + task_isolation_kernel_enter(); \
Where is the explanation why this is safe and correct vs. this fragile
code path?
> @@ -1762,6 +1763,7 @@ extern char *__get_task_comm(char *to, size_t len,
> struct task_struct *tsk);
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> static __always_inline void scheduler_ipi(void)
> {
> + task_isolation_kernel_enter();
Why is the scheduler_ipi() special? Just because everything else cannot
happen at all? Oh well...
> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> #include <trace/events/context_tracking.h>
> @@ -100,6 +101,8 @@ void noinstr __context_tracking_enter(enum ctx_state
> state)
> __this_cpu_write(context_tracking.state, state);
> }
> context_tracking_recursion_exit();
> +
> + task_isolation_exit_to_user_mode();
Why is this here at all and why is it outside of the recursion
protection
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__context_tracking_enter);
>
> @@ -148,6 +151,8 @@ void noinstr __context_tracking_exit(enum ctx_state state)
> if (!context_tracking_recursion_enter())
> return;
>
> + task_isolation_kernel_enter();
while this is inside?
And why has the scheduler_ipi() on x86 call this twice? Just because?
> if (__this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state) == state) {
> if (__this_cpu_read(context_tracking.active)) {
> /*
> diff --git a/kernel/entry/common.c b/kernel/entry/common.c
> static void exit_to_user_mode_prepare(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> - unsigned long ti_work = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags);
> + unsigned long ti_work;
>
> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>
> + task_isolation_before_pending_work_check();
> +
> + ti_work = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags);
> +
> if (unlikely(ti_work & EXIT_TO_USER_MODE_WORK))
> ti_work = exit_to_user_mode_loop(regs, ti_work);
>
> + if (unlikely(ti_work & _TIF_TASK_ISOLATION))
> + task_isolation_start();
Where is the explaination of this change?
Aside of that how does anything of this compile on x86 at all?
Answer: It does not ...
Stop this frenzy right now. It's going nowhere and all you achieve is to
make people more grumpy than they are already.
Thanks,
tglx
