[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201007150908.GI2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:09:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: fix exit_mm vs membarrier (v3)
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:57:52AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Oct 7, 2020, at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 01:25:06PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> >> index 733e80f334e7..0767a2dbf245 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> >> @@ -475,7 +475,19 @@ static void exit_mm(void)
> >> BUG_ON(mm != current->active_mm);
> >> /* more a memory barrier than a real lock */
> >> task_lock(current);
> >> + /*
> >> + * When a thread stops operating on an address space, the loop
> >> + * in membarrier_private_expedited() may not observe that
> >> + * tsk->mm, and the loop in membarrier_global_expedited() may
> >> + * not observe a MEMBARRIER_STATE_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED
> >> + * rq->membarrier_state, so those would not issue an IPI.
> >> + * Membarrier requires a memory barrier after accessing
> >> + * user-space memory, before clearing tsk->mm or the
> >> + * rq->membarrier_state.
> >> + */
> >> + smp_mb__after_spinlock();
> >> current->mm = NULL;
> >> + membarrier_update_current_mm(NULL);
> >> mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> >> enter_lazy_tlb(mm, current);
> >> task_unlock(current);
> >
> > This site seems to be lacking in IRQ disabling. As proposed it will
> > explode on RT.
>
> Right, so irq off is needed for accessing this_rq()'s fields safely,
> correct ?
Yes, but also we're having IRQs disabled on ever other site that mucks
with ->mm these days.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists