[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100107173118.GG6764@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:31:18 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
barrier
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 06:18:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 08:52 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 22:35 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The number of threads doesn't matter nearly as much as the number of
> > > > threads typically running at a time compared to the number of
> > > > processors. Of course, we can't measure that as easily, but I don't
> > > > know that your proposed heuristic would approximate it well.
> > >
> > > Quite agreed, and not disturbing RT tasks is even more important.
> >
> > OK, so I stand un-Reviewed-by twice in one morning. ;-)
> >
> > > A simple:
> > >
> > > for_each_cpu(cpu, current->mm->cpu_vm_mask) {
> > > if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
> > > smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, NULL, 1);
> > > }
> > >
> > > seems far preferable over anything else, if you really want you can use
> > > a cpumask to copy cpu_vm_mask in and unset bits and use the mask with
> > > smp_call_function_any(), but that includes having to allocate the
> > > cpumask, which might or might not be too expensive for Mathieu.
> >
> > This would be vulnerable to the sys_membarrier() CPU seeing an old value
> > of cpu_curr(cpu)->mm, and that other task seeing the old value of the
> > pointer we are trying to RCU-destroy, right?
>
> Right, so I was thinking that since you want a mb to be executed when
> calling sys_membarrier(). If you observe a matching ->mm but the cpu has
> since scheduled, we're good since it scheduled (but we'll still send the
> IPI anyway), if we do not observe it because the task gets scheduled in
> after we do the iteration we're still good because it scheduled.
Something like the following for sys_membarrier(), then?
smp_mb();
for_each_cpu(cpu, current->mm->cpu_vm_mask) {
if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, NULL, 1);
}
Then the code changing ->mm on the other CPU also needs to have a
full smp_mb() somewhere after the change to ->mm, but before starting
user-space execution. Which it might well just due to overhead, but
we need to make sure that someone doesn't optimize us out of existence.
Thanx, Paul
> As to needing to keep rcu_read_lock() around the iteration, for sure we
> need that to ensure the remote task_struct reference we take is valid.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists