Message-ID: <1639218309.1091.1501596152868.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 14:02:32 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the tip tree

----- On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Andy Lutomirski luto@...nel.org wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:04:05AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> ----- On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
> 
>>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> commit fde19879b6bd1abc0c1d4d5f945efed61bf7eb8c
>> Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
>> Date:   Fri Jul 28 16:40:40 2017 -0400
>>
>>     membarrier: Expedited private command
>>
>>     Implement MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED with IPIs using cpumask built
>>     from all runqueues for which current thread's mm is the same as the
>>     thread calling sys_membarrier. It executes faster than the non-expedited
>>     variant (no blocking). It also works on NOHZ_FULL configurations.
>>
>>     Scheduler-wise, it requires a memory barrier before and after context
>>     switching between processes (which have different mm). The memory
>>     barrier before context switch is already present. For the barrier after
>>     context switch:
>>
>>     * Our TSO archs can do RELEASE without being a full barrier. Look at
>>       x86 spin_unlock() being a regular STORE for example.  But for those
>>       archs, all atomics imply smp_mb and all of them have atomic ops in
>>       switch_mm() for mm_cpumask().
> 
> I think that, on x86, context switches, even without mm changes, must
> at least flush the store buffer (maybe SFENCE is okay) to avoid
> visible inconsistency due to store-buffer forwarding.
> 
> Anyway, can you document whatever property you require with a comment
> in switch_mm() or wherever you're finding that property so that future
> arch changes don't break it?

As I asked to Paul in my reply to his proposed manual merge,
we should indeed have a comment in switch_mm() stating something
like this just before the line invoking cpumask_set_cpu():

/*
 * The full memory barrier implied by mm_cpumask update operations
 * is required by the membarrier system call.
 */

What we want to order here is:

prev userspace memory accesses
schedule
  <full mb> (it's already there) [A]
  update to rq->curr changing the rq->curr->mm value
  <full mb> (provided by mm_cpumask updates in switch_mm on x86) [B]
next userspace memory accesses

wrt to:

userspace memory accesses
sys_membarrier
  <full mb> [C]
  iterate on each cpu's rq->curr, compare their "mm" to current->mm
    IPI each CPU that match
  <full mb> [D]
userspace memory accesses

[A] pairs with [D] and [B] pairs with [C].


> 
>> +static void membarrier_private_expedited(void)
>> +{
>> +       int cpu;
>> +       bool fallback = false;
>> +       cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
>> +
>> +       if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
>> +               return;
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * Matches memory barriers around rq->curr modification in
>> +        * scheduler.
>> +        */
>> +       smp_mb();       /* system call entry is not a mb. */
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * Expedited membarrier commands guarantee that they won't
>> +        * block, hence the GFP_NOWAIT allocation flag and fallback
>> +        * implementation.
>> +        */
>> +       if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&tmpmask, GFP_NOWAIT)) {
>> +               /* Fallback for OOM. */
>> +               fallback = true;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       cpus_read_lock();
>> +       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> +               struct task_struct *p;
>> +
>> +               /*
>> +                * Skipping the current CPU is OK even through we can be
>> +                * migrated at any point. The current CPU, at the point
>> +                * where we read raw_smp_processor_id(), is ensured to
>> +                * be in program order with respect to the caller
>> +                * thread. Therefore, we can skip this CPU from the
>> +                * iteration.
>> +                */
>> +               if (cpu == raw_smp_processor_id())
>> +                       continue;
>> +               rcu_read_lock();
>> +               p = task_rcu_dereference(&cpu_rq(cpu)->curr);
>> +               if (p && p->mm == current->mm) {
> 
> I'm a bit surprised you're iterating all CPUs instead of just CPUs in
> mm_cpumask().

I see two reasons for this. The first is because architectures like
ARM64 don't even bother populating the mm_cpumask. The second reason
is because I don't think all architectures ensure that updates to
mm_cpumask imply full memory barriers. Therefore, we would need to revisit
each architecture switch_mm to ensure mm_cpumask bit set ops either imply
a full memory barrier, or are followed by an explicit one, if we
choose to use this bitmask as an optimization.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists