[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200721150656.GN119549@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:06:56 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
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@...capital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than
membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 08:04:27PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> That being said, the x86 sync core gap that I imagined could be fixed
> by changing to rq->curr == rq->idle test does not actually exist because
> the global membarrier does not have a sync core option. So fixing the
> exit_lazy_tlb points that this series does *should* fix that. So
> PF_KTHREAD may be less problematic than I thought from implementation
> point of view, only semantics.
So I've been trying to figure out where that PF_KTHREAD comes from,
commit 227a4aadc75b ("sched/membarrier: Fix p->mm->membarrier_state racy
load") changed 'p->mm' to '!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)'.
So the first version:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190906031300.1647-5-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
appears to unconditionally send the IPI and checks p->mm in the IPI
context, but then v2:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190908134909.12389-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
has the current code. But I've been unable to find the reason the
'p->mm' test changed into '!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)'.
The comment doesn't really help either; sure we have the whole lazy mm
thing, but that's ->active_mm, not ->mm.
Possibly it is because {,un}use_mm() do not have sufficient barriers to
make the remote p->mm test work? Or were we over-eager with the !p->mm
doesn't imply kthread 'cleanups' at the time?
Also, I just realized, I still have a fix for use_mm() now
kthread_use_mm() that seems to have been lost.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists