[PATCH v6 2/3] percpu: add PERCPU_ATOM_SIZE for a generic percpu area setup
jungseoklee85 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 05:49:56 PST 2015
On Nov 3, 2015, at 1:22 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:10:23AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>>> There is no room to adjust 'atom_size' now when a generic percpu area
>>> is used. It would be redundant to write down an architecture-specific
>>> setup_per_cpu_areas() in order to only change the 'atom_size'. Thus,
>>> this patch adds a new definition, PERCPU_ATOM_SIZE, which is PAGE_SIZE
>>> by default. The value could be updated if needed by architecture.
>> What is atom_size? Why would you want a difference allocation size here?
>> The percpu area is virtually mapped regardless. So you will have
>> contiguous addresses even without atom_size.
> I haven't looked at the patch 3/3 in detail but I'm pretty sure I'll NAK
> the approach (and the definition of PERCPU_ATOM_SIZE), therefore
> rendering this patch unnecessary. IIUC, this is used to enforce some
> alignment of the per-CPU IRQ stack to be able to check whether the
> current stack is process or IRQ on exception entry. But there are other,
> less intrusive ways to achieve the same (e.g. x86).
First of all, thanks for clarification!
That is why I chose the word, 'doubtable', in the cover letter. I will
give up this approach. I've been paranoid about "another pointer read"
which you mentioned  for over a week. This wrong idea is my conclusion
with respect to your feedback. I think I've failed to follow you here.
Most ideas came from x86 implementation when I started this work. v2, 
might be close to x86 approach. At that time, for IRQ re-entrance check,
count based method was used. But count was considered a redundant variable
since we have preempt_count. As a result, the top-bit comparison idea,
which is an origin of this IRQ_STACK_SIZE alignment, have taken the work,
re-entrance check. Like x86, if we pick up the count method, we could
achieve the goal without this unnecessary alignment. How about your opinon?
I copy and paste x86 code (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S) for convenience. It has
a comment on why the redundancy is allowed.
.macro interrupt func
testb $3, CS(%rsp)
* IRQ from user mode. Switch to kernel gsbase and inform context
* tracking that we're in kernel mode.
* Save previous stack pointer, optionally switch to interrupt stack.
* irq_count is used to check if a CPU is already on an interrupt stack
* or not. While this is essentially redundant with preempt_count it is
* a little cheaper to use a separate counter in the PDA (short of
* moving irq_enter into assembly, which would be too much work)
movq %rsp, %rdi
cmovzq PER_CPU_VAR(irq_stack_ptr), %rsp
/* We entered an interrupt context - irqs are off: */
call \func /* rdi points to pt_regs */
* The interrupt stubs push (~vector+0x80) onto the stack and
* then jump to common_interrupt.
addq $-0x80, (%rsp) /* Adjust vector to [-256, -1] range */
Additionally, I've been thinking of do_softirq_own_stack() which is your
another comment . Recently, I've realized there is possibility that
I misunderstood your intention. Did you mean that irq_handler hook is not
enough? Should do_softirq_own_stack() be implemented together? If so,
this is my another failure.. It perfectly makes sense.
I hope these are the last two pieces of this interesting feature.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel