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: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1697220787.18880.1595000348405.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <1594873644.viept6os6j.astroid@bobo.none> <1494299304.15894.1594914382695.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1370747990.15974.1594915396143.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <595582123.17106.1594925921537.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200716212416.GA1126458@rowland.harvard.edu> <1770378591.18523.1594993165391.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200717145102.GC1147780@rowland.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20200717145102.GC1147780@rowland.harvard.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Nicholas Piggin , paulmck , Anton Blanchard , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch , linux-kernel , linux-mm , linuxppc-dev , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , x86 List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org ----- On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 09:39:25AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers >> >> mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > ----- 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 > > ... > >> >> Requiring a memory barrier between update of rq->curr (back to current process's >> >> thread) and following user-space memory accesses does not seem to guarantee >> >> anything more than what the initial barrier at the beginning of __schedule >> >> already >> >> provides, because the guarantees are only about accesses to user-space memory. > > ... > >> > Is it correct to say that the switch_to operations in 5 and 7 include >> > memory barriers? If they do, then skipping the IPI should be okay. >> > >> > The reason is as follows: The guarantee you need to enforce is that >> > anything written by CPU0 before the membarrier() will be visible to CPU1 >> > after it returns to user mode. Let's say that a writes to X and 9 >> > reads from X. >> > >> > Then we have an instance of the Store Buffer pattern: >> > >> > CPU0 CPU1 >> > a. Write X 6. Write rq->curr for user thread >> > c. smp_mb() 7. switch_to memory barrier >> > d. Read rq->curr 9. Read X >> > >> > In this pattern, the memory barriers make it impossible for both reads >> > to miss their corresponding writes. Since d does fail to read 6 (it >> > sees the earlier value stored by 4), 9 must read a. >> > >> > The other guarantee you need is that g on CPU0 will observe anything >> > written by CPU1 in 1. This is easier to see, using the fact that 3 is a >> > memory barrier and d reads from 4. >> >> Right, and Nick's reply involving pairs of loads/stores on each side >> clarifies the situation even further. > > The key part of my reply was the question: "Is it correct to say that > the switch_to operations in 5 and 7 include memory barriers?" From the > text quoted above and from Nick's reply, it seems clear that they do > not. I remember that switch_mm implies it, but not switch_to. The scenario that triggered this discussion is when the scheduler does a lazy tlb entry/exit, which is basically switch from a user task to a kernel thread without changing the mm, and usually switching back afterwards. This optimization means the rq->curr mm temporarily differs, which prevent IPIs from being sent by membarrier, but without involving a switch_mm. This requires explicit memory barriers either on entry/exit of lazy tlb mode, or explicit barriers in the scheduler for those special-cases. > I agree with Nick: A memory barrier is needed somewhere between the > assignment at 6 and the return to user mode at 8. Otherwise you end up > with the Store Buffer pattern having a memory barrier on only one side, > and it is well known that this arrangement does not guarantee any > ordering. Yes, I see this now. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why the memory barrier at the end of membarrier() needs to be paired with a scheduler barrier though. > One thing I don't understand about all this: Any context switch has to > include a memory barrier somewhere, but both you and Nick seem to be > saying that steps 6 and 7 don't include (or don't need) any memory > barriers. What am I missing? All context switch have the smp_mb__before_spinlock at the beginning of __schedule(), which I suspect is what you refer to. However this barrier is before the store to rq->curr, not after. Thanks, Mathieu -- 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 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 E32C9C433E1 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:42:45 +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 907862076A for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:42:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="gD8pz+Gv" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 907862076A 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 4B7b3l13RXzDrRJ for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 01:42:43 +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=gD8pz+Gv; 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 4B7Zzk46GYzDqv3 for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2020 01:39:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F35F82C8A1F; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:39:08 -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 61XC0oH3775c; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5782C88A5; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:39:08 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 8E5782C88A5 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1595000348; bh=KcymKk7xqqEPTpGeFV6WmpL2INb7TpCCRlY0uv4IIl4=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=gD8pz+GvRrmmamH69LfCRwyu3TOcDwjt7ajYq/DR8gSrVpZSqFY17J1vy3Bh0F/8o sS+G2QDxdzLVS4FjsBBvzriLqSB9ObKBgBBTiZZWeXVi3Sa/o+As9jaFmI/GVdYDUY jsph8cMcJzSZJN43LfMCqyyC+vIW7szdYu4WHYYdi+qhStvM4wOCChUxo23TbDMAwq /dfs5RVE/EMR05TtOaZFpJJ2ooWlzmv/eH6xsIHsMssnxIA6Gs9BKU0/TuaZO6Cpbb ddCLfgNCHwhu4ikCvGtM27lhk7soeCBycFCh62abkSHoULSYmrO0MEjkEYaC3YOu/6 vKl66KONA+byg== 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 VWAgzG4ZGvtm; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3A92C88A4; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:39:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Alan Stern Message-ID: <1697220787.18880.1595000348405.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <20200717145102.GC1147780@rowland.harvard.edu> References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <1594873644.viept6os6j.astroid@bobo.none> <1494299304.15894.1594914382695.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1370747990.15974.1594915396143.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <595582123.17106.1594925921537.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200716212416.GA1126458@rowland.harvard.edu> <1770378591.18523.1594993165391.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200717145102.GC1147780@rowland.harvard.edu> 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: mVSzzDyP2RjmLYTpgzYa2Ixemz2qhA== 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 , paulmck , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , x86 , linux-kernel , Nicholas Piggin , linux-mm , Andy Lutomirski , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" ----- On Jul 17, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 09:39:25AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers >> >> mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > ----- 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 > > ... > >> >> Requiring a memory barrier between update of rq->curr (back to current process's >> >> thread) and following user-space memory accesses does not seem to guarantee >> >> anything more than what the initial barrier at the beginning of __schedule >> >> already >> >> provides, because the guarantees are only about accesses to user-space memory. > > ... > >> > Is it correct to say that the switch_to operations in 5 and 7 include >> > memory barriers? If they do, then skipping the IPI should be okay. >> > >> > The reason is as follows: The guarantee you need to enforce is that >> > anything written by CPU0 before the membarrier() will be visible to CPU1 >> > after it returns to user mode. Let's say that a writes to X and 9 >> > reads from X. >> > >> > Then we have an instance of the Store Buffer pattern: >> > >> > CPU0 CPU1 >> > a. Write X 6. Write rq->curr for user thread >> > c. smp_mb() 7. switch_to memory barrier >> > d. Read rq->curr 9. Read X >> > >> > In this pattern, the memory barriers make it impossible for both reads >> > to miss their corresponding writes. Since d does fail to read 6 (it >> > sees the earlier value stored by 4), 9 must read a. >> > >> > The other guarantee you need is that g on CPU0 will observe anything >> > written by CPU1 in 1. This is easier to see, using the fact that 3 is a >> > memory barrier and d reads from 4. >> >> Right, and Nick's reply involving pairs of loads/stores on each side >> clarifies the situation even further. > > The key part of my reply was the question: "Is it correct to say that > the switch_to operations in 5 and 7 include memory barriers?" From the > text quoted above and from Nick's reply, it seems clear that they do > not. I remember that switch_mm implies it, but not switch_to. The scenario that triggered this discussion is when the scheduler does a lazy tlb entry/exit, which is basically switch from a user task to a kernel thread without changing the mm, and usually switching back afterwards. This optimization means the rq->curr mm temporarily differs, which prevent IPIs from being sent by membarrier, but without involving a switch_mm. This requires explicit memory barriers either on entry/exit of lazy tlb mode, or explicit barriers in the scheduler for those special-cases. > I agree with Nick: A memory barrier is needed somewhere between the > assignment at 6 and the return to user mode at 8. Otherwise you end up > with the Store Buffer pattern having a memory barrier on only one side, > and it is well known that this arrangement does not guarantee any > ordering. Yes, I see this now. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why the memory barrier at the end of membarrier() needs to be paired with a scheduler barrier though. > One thing I don't understand about all this: Any context switch has to > include a memory barrier somewhere, but both you and Nick seem to be > saying that steps 6 and 7 don't include (or don't need) any memory > barriers. What am I missing? All context switch have the smp_mb__before_spinlock at the beginning of __schedule(), which I suspect is what you refer to. However this barrier is before the store to rq->curr, not after. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com