On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 03:03:51PM -0500, Christopher M. Riedl wrote: > On Thu May 6, 2021 at 5:51 AM CDT, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 11:34:51PM -0500, Christopher M. Riedl wrote: > > > Powerpc allows for multiple CPUs to patch concurrently. When patching > > > with STRICT_KERNEL_RWX a single patching_mm is allocated for use by all > > > CPUs for the few times that patching occurs. Use a spinlock to protect > > > the patching_mm from concurrent use. > > > > > > Modify patch_instruction() to acquire the lock, perform the patch op, > > > and then release the lock. > > > > > > Also introduce {lock,unlock}_patching() along with > > > patch_instruction_unlocked() to avoid per-iteration lock overhead when > > > patch_instruction() is called in a loop. A follow-up patch converts some > > > uses of patch_instruction() to use patch_instruction_unlocked() instead. > > > > x86 uses text_mutex for all this, why not do the same? > > I wasn't entirely sure if there is a problem with potentially going to > sleep in some of the places where patch_instruction() is called - the > spinlock avoids that (hypothetical) problem.
So I'm not saying you like have to do this; but I did wonder if there's a reason not to, and given you didn't mention it, I had to ask. > I just tried switching to text_mutex and at least on a P9 machine the > series boots w/ the Hash and Radix MMUs (with some lockdep errors). I > can rework this in the next version to use text_mutex if I don't find > any new problems with more extensive testing. It does mean more changes > to use patch_instruction_unlocked() in kprobe/optprobe/ftace in > arch/powerpc since iirc those are called with text_mutex already held. The x86 text_poke() has a lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex) in to make sure nobody 'forgets' :-)