In https://lore.kernel.org/all/87y22uujkm.ffs@tglx/ Thomas
said:
Its's simply wishful thinking that stuff gets fixed because of a
WARN_ONCE(). This has never worked. The only thing which works is to
make stuff fail hard or slow it down in a way which makes it annoying
enough to users to complain.
He was talking about WBINVD. But it made me think about how we use the
split lock detection feature in Linux.
Existing code has three options for applications:
1) Don't enable split lock detection (allow arbitrary split locks)
2) Warn once when a process uses split lock, but let the process
keep running with split lock detection disabled
3) Kill process that use split locks
Option 2 falls into the "wishful thinking" territory that Thomas warns does
nothing. But option 3 might not be viable in a situation with legacy
applications that need to run.
Hence make option 2 much stricter to "slow it down in a way which makes
it annoying".
Primary reason for this change is to provide better quality of service to
the rest of the applications running on the system. Internal testing shows
that even with many processes splitting locks, performance for the rest of
the system is much more responsive.
The new "warn" mode operates like this. When an application tries to
execute a bus lock the #AC handler.
1) Delays (interruptibly) 10 ms before moving to next step.
2) Blocks (interruptibly) until it can get the semaphore
If interrupted, just return. Assume the signal will either
kill the task, or direct execution away from the instruction
that is trying to get the bus lock.
3) Disables split lock detection for the current core
4) Schedules a work queue to re-enable split lock detect in 2 jiffies
5) Returns
The work queue that re-enables split lock detection also releases the
semaphore.
There is a corner case where a CPU may be taken offline while split lock
detection is disabled. A CPU hotplug handler handles this case.
Old behaviour was to only print the split lock warning on the first
occurrence of a split lock from a task. Preserve that by adding a flag to
the task structure that suppresses subsequent split lock messages from that
task.
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220310204854.31752-2-tony.luck@intel.com
b041b525da