Message-Id: <1594942495.8qcz211iwc.astroid@bobo.none>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:00:23 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than
 membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode

Excerpts from Mathieu Desnoyers's message of July 17, 2020 4:58 am:
> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:
> 
>> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:
>> 
>>> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@...il.com wrote:
>>>> I should be more complete here, especially since I was complaining
>>>> about unclear barrier comment :)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> CPU0                     CPU1
>>>> a. user stuff            1. user stuff
>>>> b. membarrier()          2. enter kernel
>>>> c. smp_mb()              3. smp_mb__after_spinlock(); // in __schedule
>>>> d. read rq->curr         4. rq->curr switched to kthread
>>>> e. is kthread, skip IPI  5. switch_to kthread
>>>> f. return to user        6. rq->curr switched to user thread
>>>> g. user stuff            7. switch_to user thread
>>>>                         8. exit kernel
>>>>                         9. more user stuff
>>>> 
>>>> What you're really ordering is a, g vs 1, 9 right?
>>>> 
>>>> In other words, 9 must see a if it sees g, g must see 1 if it saw 9,
>>>> etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Userspace does not care where the barriers are exactly or what kernel
>>>> memory accesses might be being ordered by them, so long as there is a
>>>> mb somewhere between a and g, and 1 and 9. Right?
>>> 
>>> This is correct.
>> 
>> Actually, sorry, the above is not quite right. It's been a while
>> since I looked into the details of membarrier.
>> 
>> The smp_mb() at the beginning of membarrier() needs to be paired with a
>> smp_mb() _after_ rq->curr is switched back to the user thread, so the
>> memory barrier is between store to rq->curr and following user-space
>> accesses.
>> 
>> The smp_mb() at the end of membarrier() needs to be paired with the
>> smp_mb__after_spinlock() at the beginning of schedule, which is
>> between accesses to userspace memory and switching rq->curr to kthread.
>> 
>> As to *why* this ordering is needed, I'd have to dig through additional
>> scenarios from https://lwn.net/Articles/573436/. Or maybe Paul remembers ?
> 
> Thinking further about this, I'm beginning to consider that maybe we have been
> overly cautious by requiring memory barriers before and after store to rq->curr.
> 
> If CPU0 observes a CPU1's rq->curr->mm which differs from its own process (current)
> while running the membarrier system call, it necessarily means that CPU1 had
> to issue smp_mb__after_spinlock when entering the scheduler, between any user-space
> loads/stores and update of rq->curr.
> 
> Requiring a memory barrier between update of rq->curr (back to current process's
> thread) and following user-space memory accesses does not seem to guarantee
> anything more than what the initial barrier at the beginning of __schedule already
> provides, because the guarantees are only about accesses to user-space memory.
> 
> Therefore, with the memory barrier at the beginning of __schedule, just observing that
> CPU1's rq->curr differs from current should guarantee that a memory barrier was issued
> between any sequentially consistent instructions belonging to the current process on
> CPU1.
> 
> Or am I missing/misremembering an important point here ?

I might have mislead you.

 CPU0            CPU1
 r1=y            x=1
 membarrier()    y=1
 r2=x

membarrier provides if r1==1 then r2==1 (right?)

 CPU0
 r1=y
 membarrier()
   smp_mb();
   t = cpu_rq(1)->curr;
   if (t->mm == mm)
     IPI(CPU1);
   smp_mb()
 r2=x

 vs

 CPU1
   ...
   __schedule()
     smp_mb__after_spinlock()
     rq->curr = kthread
   ...
   __schedule()
     smp_mb__after_spinlock()
     rq->curr = user thread
 exit kernel
 x=1
 y=1

Now these last 3 stores are not ordered, so CPU0 might see y==1 but
rq->curr == kthread, right? Then it will skip the IPI and stores to x 
and y will not be ordered.

So we do need a mb after rq->curr store when mm is switching.

I believe for the global membarrier PF_KTHREAD optimisation, we also 
need a barrier when switching from a kernel thread to user, for the
same reason.

So I think I was wrong to say the barrier is not necessary.

I haven't quite worked out why two mb()s are required in membarrier(),
but at least that's less of a performance concern.

Thanks,
Nick

Powered by blists - more mailing lists