[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801161915090.2366@nanos>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:20:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Maged Michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Sehr <sehr@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.16 04/10] membarrier: provide SHARED_EXPEDITED
command (v2)
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> +static int membarrier_shared_expedited(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> + bool fallback = false;
> + cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
> +
> + if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * 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 && (atomic_read(&p->mm->membarrier_state) &
> + MEMBARRIER_STATE_SHARED_EXPEDITED)) {
This does not make sense vs. the documentation:
> + * @MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED_EXPEDITED:
> + * Execute a memory barrier on all running threads
> + * part of a process which previously registered
> + * with MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_SHARED_EXPEDITED.
This should say:
> + * Execute a memory barrier on all running threads
> + * of all processes which previously registered
> + * with MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_SHARED_EXPEDITED.
And I really have to ask whether this should be named _GLOBAL_ instead of
_SHARED_.
Hmm?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists