Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 123 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.rst b/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..dff60a80b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/NMI-RCU.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+.. _NMI_rcu_doc:
+
+Using RCU to Protect Dynamic NMI Handlers
+=========================================
+
+
+Although RCU is usually used to protect read-mostly data structures,
+it is possible to use RCU to provide dynamic non-maskable interrupt
+handlers, as well as dynamic irq handlers.  This document describes
+how to do this, drawing loosely from Zwane Mwaikambo's NMI-timer
+work in an old version of "arch/x86/kernel/traps.c".
+
+The relevant pieces of code are listed below, each followed by a
+brief explanation::
+
+	static int dummy_nmi_callback(struct pt_regs *regs, int cpu)
+	{
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+The dummy_nmi_callback() function is a "dummy" NMI handler that does
+nothing, but returns zero, thus saying that it did nothing, allowing
+the NMI handler to take the default machine-specific action::
+
+	static nmi_callback_t nmi_callback = dummy_nmi_callback;
+
+This nmi_callback variable is a global function pointer to the current
+NMI handler::
+
+	void do_nmi(struct pt_regs * regs, long error_code)
+	{
+		int cpu;
+
+		nmi_enter();
+
+		cpu = smp_processor_id();
+		++nmi_count(cpu);
+
+		if (!rcu_dereference_sched(nmi_callback)(regs, cpu))
+			default_do_nmi(regs);
+
+		nmi_exit();
+	}
+
+The do_nmi() function processes each NMI.  It first disables preemption
+in the same way that a hardware irq would, then increments the per-CPU
+count of NMIs.  It then invokes the NMI handler stored in the nmi_callback
+function pointer.  If this handler returns zero, do_nmi() invokes the
+default_do_nmi() function to handle a machine-specific NMI.  Finally,
+preemption is restored.
+
+In theory, rcu_dereference_sched() is not needed, since this code runs
+only on i386, which in theory does not need rcu_dereference_sched()
+anyway.  However, in practice it is a good documentation aid, particularly
+for anyone attempting to do something similar on Alpha or on systems
+with aggressive optimizing compilers.
+
+Quick Quiz:
+		Why might the rcu_dereference_sched() be necessary on Alpha, given that the code referenced by the pointer is read-only?
+
+:ref:`Answer to Quick Quiz <answer_quick_quiz_NMI>`
+
+Back to the discussion of NMI and RCU::
+
+	void set_nmi_callback(nmi_callback_t callback)
+	{
+		rcu_assign_pointer(nmi_callback, callback);
+	}
+
+The set_nmi_callback() function registers an NMI handler.  Note that any
+data that is to be used by the callback must be initialized up -before-
+the call to set_nmi_callback().  On architectures that do not order
+writes, the rcu_assign_pointer() ensures that the NMI handler sees the
+initialized values::
+
+	void unset_nmi_callback(void)
+	{
+		rcu_assign_pointer(nmi_callback, dummy_nmi_callback);
+	}
+
+This function unregisters an NMI handler, restoring the original
+dummy_nmi_handler().  However, there may well be an NMI handler
+currently executing on some other CPU.  We therefore cannot free
+up any data structures used by the old NMI handler until execution
+of it completes on all other CPUs.
+
+One way to accomplish this is via synchronize_rcu(), perhaps as
+follows::
+
+	unset_nmi_callback();
+	synchronize_rcu();
+	kfree(my_nmi_data);
+
+This works because (as of v4.20) synchronize_rcu() blocks until all
+CPUs complete any preemption-disabled segments of code that they were
+executing.
+Since NMI handlers disable preemption, synchronize_rcu() is guaranteed
+not to return until all ongoing NMI handlers exit.  It is therefore safe
+to free up the handler's data as soon as synchronize_rcu() returns.
+
+Important note: for this to work, the architecture in question must
+invoke nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() on NMI entry and exit, respectively.
+
+.. _answer_quick_quiz_NMI:
+
+Answer to Quick Quiz:
+	Why might the rcu_dereference_sched() be necessary on Alpha, given that the code referenced by the pointer is read-only?
+
+	The caller to set_nmi_callback() might well have
+	initialized some data that is to be used by the new NMI
+	handler.  In this case, the rcu_dereference_sched() would
+	be needed, because otherwise a CPU that received an NMI
+	just after the new handler was set might see the pointer
+	to the new NMI handler, but the old pre-initialized
+	version of the handler's data.
+
+	This same sad story can happen on other CPUs when using
+	a compiler with aggressive pointer-value speculation
+	optimizations.  (But please don't!)
+
+	More important, the rcu_dereference_sched() makes it
+	clear to someone reading the code that the pointer is
+	being protected by RCU-sched.