On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 02:49:02PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 03:15:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 06:31:22PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > Oh gawd. Can we please do something simple like: > > > > > > guard(irqsave)(); > > > cpu = raw_smp_processor_id(); > > > ctr = __this_cpu_read(unwind_ctx_cnt); > > > > Don't you need a compiler barrier here? __this_cpu_read() doesn't have > > one. > > What for?
Hm, I guess it's not needed for this one. > > > cookie = READ_ONCE(current->unwind_info.cookie); > > > do { > > > if (cookie) > > > return cookie; > > > cookie = ctx_to_cookie(cpu, ctr+1); > > > } while (!try_cmpxchg64(¤t->unwind_info.cookie, &cookie, cookie)); Should not the 2nd argument be &zero? > > > __this_cpu_write(unwind_ctx_ctr, ctr+1); > > > return cookie; > > But also, the nmi_cookie is still needed for the case where the NMI > > arrives before info->cookie gets cleared by early entry-from-user. > > So how about we clear cookie (and set nr_entries to -1) at I think we could set nr_entries to 0 instead of -1? > return-to-user, after we've done the work loop and have interrupts > disabled until we hit userspace. > > Any NMI that hits there will have to cause another entry anyway. But there's a cookie mismatch: // return-to-user: IRQs disabled <NMI> current->unwind_info.cookie = 0x1234 </NMI> unwind_exit_to_user_mode() current->unwind_info.cookie = 0 IRET <IRQ> task_work() callback(@cookie=WRONG) -- Josh