[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f96978d0-ae96-0b4e-042f-531d17cb217e@efficios.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 08:57:20 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Olivier Dion <odion@...icios.com>, michael.christie@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] sched: Fix performance regression introduced by
mm_cid
On 2023-04-11 05:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 09:14:36PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> index bc0e1cd0d6ac..f3e7dc2cd1cc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> @@ -3354,6 +3354,37 @@ static inline int mm_cid_get(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> static inline void switch_mm_cid(struct task_struct *prev, struct task_struct *next)
>> {
>> + /*
>> + * Provide a memory barrier between rq->curr store and load of
>> + * {prev,next}->mm->pcpu_cid[cpu] on rq->curr->mm transition.
>> + *
>> + * Should be adapted if context_switch() is modified.
>> + */
>> + if (!next->mm) { // to kernel
>> + /*
>> + * user -> kernel transition does not guarantee a barrier, but
>> + * we can use the fact that it performs an atomic operation in
>> + * mmgrab().
>> + */
>> + if (prev->mm) // from user
>> + smp_mb__after_mmgrab();
>> + /*
>> + * kernel -> kernel transition does not change rq->curr->mm
>> + * state. It stays NULL.
>> + */
>> + } else { // to user
>> + /*
>> + * kernel -> user transition does not provide a barrier
>> + * between rq->curr store and load of {prev,next}->mm->pcpu_cid[cpu].
>> + * Provide it here.
>> + */
>> + if (!prev->mm) // from kernel
>> + smp_mb();
>> + /*
>> + * user -> user transition guarantees a memory barrier through
>> + * switch_mm().
>> + */
>
> What about the user->user case where next->mm == prev->mm ? There
> sys_membarrier() relies on finish_task_switch()'s mmdrop(), but we
> can't.
AFAIU the finish_task_switch()'s mmdrop() is for the case where:
* [...] or in
* case 'prev->active_mm == next->mm' through
* finish_task_switch()'s mmdrop().
which applies for the case where we schedule from a kernel thread (which
kept the prior user task's mm as active mm) to a user task with the same
mm.
But this is really a transition from kernel -> user, not user -> user ?
Why should either membarrier or mm_cid care about a transition from
prev->mm to next->mm where mm is unchanged ? It does not register
as a transition from the comparison perspective.
I'll update my comment in switch_mm_cid to:
/*
* user -> user transition guarantees a memory barrier through
* switch_mm() when current->mm changes. If current->mm is
* unchanged, no barrier is needed.
*/
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
>> + }
>> if (prev->mm_cid_active) {
>> mm_cid_put_lazy(prev);
>> prev->mm_cid = -1;
>>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists