[PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Expand the stack trace feature to support IRQ stack
Jungseok Lee
jungseoklee85 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 06:08:42 PDT 2015
On Oct 20, 2015, at 1:18 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Catalin,
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:38:16PM +0900, Jungseok Lee wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> BTW, a static allocation (DEFINE_PER_CPU for the whole irq stack) would
>>> save us from another stack address reading on the IRQ entry path. I'm
>>> not sure exactly where the 16K image increase comes from but at least it
>>> doesn't grow with NR_CPUS, so we can probably live with this.
>>
>> I've tried the approach, a static allocation using DEFINE_PER_CPU, but
>> it dose not work on a top-bit comparison method (for IRQ re-entrance
>> check). The top-bit idea is based on the assumption that IRQ stack is
>> aligned with THREAD_SIZE. But, tpidr_el1 is PAGE_SIZE aligned. It leads
>> to IRQ re-entrance failure in case of 4KB page system.
>>
>> IMHO, it is hard to avoid 16KB size increase for 64KB page support.
>> Secondary cores can rely on slab.h, but a boot core cannot. So, IRQ
>> stack for at least a boot cpu should be allocated statically.
>
> Ah, I forgot about the alignment check. The problem we have with your v5
> patch is that kmalloc() doesn't guarantee this either (see commit
> 2a0b5c0d1929, "arm64: Align less than PAGE_SIZE pgds naturally", where
> we had to fix this for pgd_alloc).
The alignment would be guaranteed under the following additional diff. It is
possible to remove one pointer read in irq_stack_entry on 64KB page, but it
leads to code divergence. Am I missing something?
----8<----
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
index 2755b2f..c480613 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
@@ -17,15 +17,17 @@
#include <asm-generic/irq.h>
#if IRQ_STACK_SIZE >= PAGE_SIZE
-static inline void *__alloc_irq_stack(void)
+static inline void *__alloc_irq_stack(unsigned int cpu)
{
return (void *)__get_free_pages(THREADINFO_GFP | __GFP_ZERO,
IRQ_STACK_SIZE_ORDER);
}
#else
-static inline void *__alloc_irq_stack(void)
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(char [IRQ_STACK_SIZE], irq_stack) __aligned(IRQ_STACK_SIZE);
+
+static inline void *__alloc_irq_stack(unsigned int cpu)
{
- return kmalloc(IRQ_STACK_SIZE, THREADINFO_GFP | __GFP_ZERO);
+ return (void *)per_cpu(irq_stack, cpu);
}
#endif
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index c8e0bcf..f1303c5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ alternative_endif
.endm
.macro irq_stack_entry
- adr_l x19, irq_stacks
+ adr_l x19, irq_stack_ptr
mrs x20, tpidr_el1
add x19, x19, x20
ldr x24, [x19]
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
index 13fe8f4..acb9a14 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
@@ -30,7 +30,10 @@
unsigned long irq_err_count;
-DEFINE_PER_CPU(void *, irq_stacks);
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(void *, irq_stack_ptr);
+#if IRQ_STACK_SIZE < PAGE_SIZE
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(char [IRQ_STACK_SIZE], irq_stack) __aligned(IRQ_STACK_SIZE);
+#endif
int arch_show_interrupts(struct seq_file *p, int prec)
{
@@ -49,13 +52,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
handle_arch_irq = handle_irq;
}
-static char boot_irq_stack[IRQ_STACK_SIZE] __aligned(IRQ_STACK_SIZE);
-
void __init init_IRQ(void)
{
- unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
-
- per_cpu(irq_stacks, cpu) = boot_irq_stack + IRQ_STACK_START_SP;
+ if (alloc_irq_stack(smp_processor_id()))
+ panic("Failed to allocate IRQ stack for a boot cpu");
irqchip_init();
if (!handle_arch_irq)
@@ -66,14 +66,14 @@ int alloc_irq_stack(unsigned int cpu)
{
void *stack;
- if (per_cpu(irq_stacks, cpu))
+ if (per_cpu(irq_stack_ptr, cpu))
return 0;
- stack = __alloc_irq_stack();
+ stack = __alloc_irq_stack(cpu);
if (!stack)
return -ENOMEM;
- per_cpu(irq_stacks, cpu) = stack + IRQ_STACK_START_SP;
+ per_cpu(irq_stack_ptr, cpu) = stack + IRQ_STACK_START_SP;
return 0;
}
----8<----
>
> I'm leaning more and more towards the x86 approach as I mentioned in the
> two messages below:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2041877
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2043002
>
> With a per-cpu stack you can avoid another pointer read, replacing it
> with a single check for the re-entrance. But note that the update only
> happens during do_softirq_own_stack() and *not* for every IRQ taken.
I've reviewed carefully the approach you mentioned about a month ago.
According to my observation on max stack depth, its context is as follows:
(1) process context
(2) hard IRQ raised
(3) soft IRQ raised in irq_exit()
(4) another process context
(5) another hard IRQ raised
The below is a stack description under the scenario.
--- ------- <- High address of stack
| |
| |
(a) | | Process context (1)
| |
| |
--- ------- <- Hard IRQ raised (2)
(b) | |
--- ------- <- Soft IRQ raised in irq_exit() (3)
(c) | |
--- ------- <- Max stack depth by (2)
| |
(d) | | Another process context (4)
| |
--- ------- <- Another hard IRQ raised (5)
(e) | |
--- ------- <- Low address of stack
The following is max stack depth calculation: The first argument of max() is
handled by process stack, the second one is handled by IRQ stack.
- current status : max_stack_depth = max((a)+(b)+(c)+(d)+(e), 0)
- current patch : max_stack_depth = max((a), (b)+(c)+(d)+(e))
- do_softirq_own_ : max_stack_depth = max((a)+(b)+(c), (c)+(d)+(e))
It is a principal objective to build up an infrastructure targeted at reduction
of process stack size, THREAD_SIZE. Frankly I'm not sure about the inequality,
(a)+(b)+(c) <= 8KB. If the condition is not satisfied, this feature, IRQ stack
support, would be questionable. That is, it might be insufficient to manage a
single out-of-tree patch which adjusts both IRQ_STACK_SIZE and THREAD_SIZE.
However, if the inequality is guaranteed, do_softirq_own_ approach looks better
than the current one in operation overhead perspective. BTW, is there a way to
simplify a top-bit comparison logic?
Great thanks for valuable feedbacks from which I've learned a lot.
Best Regards
Jungseok Lee
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list