Message-ID: <872090791.15342.1631296555821.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com>
Cc:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/3] Provide fast access to thread specific
 data

----- On Sep 10, 2021, at 1:48 PM, Peter Oskolkov posk@...gle.com wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:33 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>
>> ----- On Sep 10, 2021, at 12:37 PM, Florian Weimer fweimer@...hat.com wrote:
>>
>> > * Peter Oskolkov:
>> >
>> >> In short, due to the need to read/write to the userspace from
>> >> non-sleepable contexts in the kernel it seems that we need to have some
>> >> form of per task/thread kernel/userspace shared memory that is pinned,
>> >> similar to what your sys_task_getshared does.
>> >
>> > In glibc, we'd also like to have this for PID and TID.  Eventually,
>> > rt_sigprocmask without kernel roundtrip in most cases would be very nice
>> > as well.  For performance and simplicity in userspace, it would be best
>> > if the memory region could be at the same offset from the TCB for all
>> > threads.
>> >
>> > For KTLS, the idea was that the auxiliary vector would contain size and
>> > alignment of the KTLS.  Userspace would reserve that memory, register it
>> > with the kernel like rseq (or the robust list pointers), and pass its
>> > address to the vDSO functions that need them.  The last part ensures
>> > that the vDSO functions do not need non-global data to determine the
>> > offset from the TCB.  Registration is still needed for the caches.
>> >
>> > I think previous discussions (in the KTLS and rseq context) did not have
>> > the pinning constraint.
>>
>> If this data is per-thread, and read from user-space, why is it relevant
>> to update this data from non-sleepable kernel context rather than update it as
>> needed on return-to-userspace ? When returning to userspace, sleeping due to a
>> page fault is entirely acceptable. This is what we currently do for rseq.
>>
>> In short, the data could be accessible from the task struct. Flags in the
>> task struct can let return-to-userspace know that it has outdated ktls
>> data. So before returning to userspace, the kernel can copy the relevant data
>> from the task struct to the shared memory area, without requiring any pinning.
>>
>> What am I missing ?
> 
> I can't speak about other use cases, but in the context of userspace
> scheduling, the information that a task has blocked in the kernel and
> is going to be removed from its runqueue cannot wait to be delivered
> to the userspace until the task wakes up, as the userspace scheduler
> needs to know of the even when it happened so that it can schedule
> another task in place of the blocked one. See the discussion here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAG48ez0mgCXpXnqAUsa0TcFBPjrid-74Gj=xG8HZqj2n+OPoKw@mail.gmail.com/

OK, just to confirm my understanding, so the use-case here is per-thread
state which can be read by other threads (in this case the userspace scheduler) ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists