From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1370747990.15974.1594915396143.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <1594613902.1wzayj0p15.astroid@bobo.none> <1594647408.wmrazhwjzb.astroid@bobo.none> <284592761.9860.1594649601492.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1594868476.6k5kvx8684.astroid@bobo.none> <1594873644.viept6os6j.astroid@bobo.none> <1494299304.15894.1594914382695.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.efficios.com ([167.114.26.124]:46800 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728374AbgGPQDR (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1494299304.15894.1594914382695.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nicholas Piggin , paulmck Cc: Anton Blanchard , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch , linux-kernel , linux-mm , linuxppc-dev , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , x86 ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote: > ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@gmail.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 ? Thanks, Mathieu > Note that the accesses to user-space memory can be > done either by user-space code or kernel code, it doesn't matter. > However, in order to be considered as happening before/after > either membarrier or the matching compiler barrier, kernel code > needs to have causality relationship with user-space execution, > e.g. user-space does a system call, or returns from a system call. > > In the case of io_uring, submitting a request or returning from waiting > on request completion appear to provide this causality relationship. > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59498C433DF for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:18:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 076AE206F4 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:18:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="Uj+fVu3v" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 076AE206F4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=efficios.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6zvs5gqRzDqlS for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 02:18:49 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=efficios.com (client-ip=167.114.26.124; helo=mail.efficios.com; envelope-from=compudj@efficios.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=efficios.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Uj+fVu3v; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.efficios.com (mail.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B6zrY2fVRzDql9 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 02:15:56 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06FB295E92; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id h6dTmlhaVCiO; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D43C295E90; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 3D43C295E90 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1594915396; bh=mzI1lsmkCqUoU+RIzi1y/z+ICNgOzKHpa+BFfJmeXcA=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Uj+fVu3vFarO+Ej0xK0ClNjz74oTK8IF0qCDOURpIEthfdu9Inr8oiSjVf+GS3mHU MIrqCODudEgLauzfJXjVqwg3wBMSFNei2JK6il/GJKwj5X8hEVJzTfmymU+Ow51PEf 508wieLuLuZjzRpl6Jn28MaGe7IGWNB6kCcIB3SYg3/+tHSPdLesF2de8F9Hd3W1tZ G3BSSJSLPxuQccTgaFmUgi7Sw/jO+vMSR+m6MaWN9dkafRY0dEP7SAdKMKWDMmQfWb W2Uj1LJDpw5Z1vo4cW3yMfPRqCotBwS95dZ4Igny4g0s+NZJ539JfB/tziBYyFvtuk CDpSWvmNkhpQA== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id EHdSPGO9pHv0; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29777295BE3; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Nicholas Piggin , paulmck Message-ID: <1370747990.15974.1594915396143.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <1494299304.15894.1594914382695.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <1594613902.1wzayj0p15.astroid@bobo.none> <1594647408.wmrazhwjzb.astroid@bobo.none> <284592761.9860.1594649601492.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1594868476.6k5kvx8684.astroid@bobo.none> <1594873644.viept6os6j.astroid@bobo.none> <1494299304.15894.1594914382695.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [167.114.26.124] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3955 (ZimbraWebClient - FF78 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3953) Thread-Topic: x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode Thread-Index: cb6zdS0KPjkbq8hxmgetruE+ExgftXKEdKLP X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , x86 , linux-kernel , linux-mm , Andy Lutomirski , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote: > ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@gmail.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 ? Thanks, Mathieu > Note that the accesses to user-space memory can be > done either by user-space code or kernel code, it doesn't matter. > However, in order to be considered as happening before/after > either membarrier or the matching compiler barrier, kernel code > needs to have causality relationship with user-space execution, > e.g. user-space does a system call, or returns from a system call. > > In the case of io_uring, submitting a request or returning from waiting > on request completion appear to provide this causality relationship. > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com