[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170725163318.bporqvcoodtel4a6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:33:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:58:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The sys_membarrier() system call has proven too slow for some use
> cases, which has prompted users to instead rely on TLB shootdown.
> Although TLB shootdown is much faster, it has the slight disadvantage
> of not working at all on arm and arm64. This commit therefore adds
> an expedited option to the sys_membarrier() system call.
> @@ -64,6 +65,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(membarrier, int, cmd, int, flags)
> if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
> synchronize_sched();
> return 0;
> + case MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED_EXPEDITED:
> + if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
> + synchronize_sched_expedited();
> + return 0;
So you now give unprivileged userspace the means to IPI the entire
machine?
So what do we do when someone goes and does:
for (;;)
sys_membarrier(MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED_EXPEDITED, 0);
on us?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists