Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:47:50 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	josh@...htriplett.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 (v5)

> * KOSAKI Motohiro (kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com) wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Interesting patch :)
> > 
> > I have few comments.
> > 
> > > Index: linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/kernel/sched.c	2010-01-12 10:25:47.000000000 -0500
> > > +++ linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c	2010-01-12 14:33:20.000000000 -0500
> > > @@ -10822,6 +10822,117 @@ struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys = {
> > >  };
> > >  #endif	/* CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT */
> > >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Execute a memory barrier on all active threads from the current process
> > > + * on SMP systems. Do not rely on implicit barriers in IPI handler execution,
> > > + * because batched IPI lists are synchronized with spinlocks rather than full
> > > + * memory barriers. This is not the bulk of the overhead anyway, so let's stay
> > > + * on the safe side.
> > > + */
> > > +static void membarrier_ipi(void *unused)
> > > +{
> > > +	smp_mb();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Handle out-of-mem by sending per-cpu IPIs instead.
> > > + */
> > > +static void membarrier_retry(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > +	int cpu;
> > > +
> > > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)) {
> > > +		spin_lock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > > +		mm = cpu_curr(cpu)->mm;
> > > +		spin_unlock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > > +		if (current->mm == mm)
> > > +			smp_call_function_single(cpu, membarrier_ipi, NULL, 1);
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_SMP */
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * sys_membarrier - issue memory barrier on current process running threads
> > > + * @expedited: (0) Lowest overhead. Few milliseconds latency.
> > > + *             (1) Few microseconds latency.
> > 
> > Why do we need both expedited and non-expedited mode? at least, this documentation
> > is bad. it suggest "you have to use non-expedited mode always!".
> 
> Right. Maybe I should rather write:
> 
>  + * @expedited: (0) Low overhead, but slow execution (few milliseconds)
>  + *             (1) Slightly higher overhead, fast execution (few microseconds)
> 
> And I could probably go as far as adding a few paragraphs:
> 
> Using the non-expedited mode is recommended for applications which can
> afford leaving the caller thread waiting for a few milliseconds. A good
> example would be a thread dedicated to execute RCU callbacks, which
> waits for callbacks to enqueue most of the time anyway.
> 
> The expedited mode is recommended whenever the application needs to have
> control returning to the caller thread as quickly as possible. An
> example of such application would be one which uses the same thread to
> perform data structure updates and issue the RCU synchronization.
> 
> It is perfectly safe to call both expedited and non-expedited
> sys_membarriers in a process.
> 
> 
> Does that help ?

Do librcu need both? I bet average programmer don't understand this
explanation. please recall, syscall interface are used by non kernel
developers too. If librcu only use either (0) or (1), I hope remove
another one.

But if librcu really need both, the above explanation is enough good.
I think.


> > > +	 * Memory barrier on the caller thread _before_ sending first
> > > +	 * IPI. Matches memory barriers around mm_cpumask modification in
> > > +	 * switch_mm().
> > > +	 */
> > > +	smp_mb();
> > > +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmpmask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> > > +		membarrier_retry();
> > > +		goto unlock;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > if CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=1, alloc_cpumask_var call kmalloc. FWIW,
> > kmalloc calling seems destory the worth of this patch.
> 
> Why ? I'm not sure I understand your point. Even if we call kmalloc to
> allocate the cpumask, this is a constant overhead. The benefit of
> smp_call_function_many() over smp_call_function_single() is that it
> scales better by allowing to broadcast IPIs when the architecture
> supports it. Or maybe I'm missing something ?

It depend on what mean "constant overhead". kmalloc might cause
page reclaim and undeterministic delay. I'm not sure (1) How much
membarrier_retry() slower than smp_call_function_many and (2) Which do
you think important average or worst performance. Only I note I don't
think GFP_KERNEL is constant overhead.

hmm...
Do you intend to GFP_ATOMIC?



> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK
> > 	membarrier_retry();
> > 	goto unlock;
> > #endif
> > 
> > is better? I'm not sure.
> 
> Thanks for the comments !
> 
> Mathieu
> 


--
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