Re: [PATCH 3/3] membarrier: Propagate SYNC_CORE and RSEQ actions more carefully

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

----- On Dec 1, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:29 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>> ----- On Dec 1, 2020, at 1:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:28 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
>> > <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ----- On Dec 1, 2020, at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:50:35AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> >> membarrier() carefully propagates SYNC_CORE and RSEQ actions to all
>> >> >> other CPUs, but there are two issues.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  - membarrier() does not sync_core() or rseq_preempt() the calling
>> >> >>    CPU.  Aside from the logic being mind-bending, this also means
>> >> >>    that it may not be safe to modify user code through an alias,
>> >> >>    call membarrier(), and then jump to a different executable alias
>> >> >>    of the same code.
>> >> >
>> >> > I always understood this to be on purpose. The calling CPU can fix up
>> >> > itself just fine. The pain point is fixing up the other CPUs, and that's
>> >> > where membarrier() helps.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, as documented in the man page:
>> >>
>> >>        MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE (since Linux 4.16)
>> >>               In  addition  to  providing  the  memory ordering guarantees de‐
>> >>               scribed in MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED,  upon  return  from
>> >>               system call the calling thread has a guarantee that all its run‐
>> >>               ning thread siblings have executed a core  serializing  instruc‐
>> >>               tion.   This  guarantee is provided only for threads in the same
>> >>               process as the calling thread.
>> >>
>> >> membarrier sync core guarantees a core serializing instruction on the siblings,
>> >> not on the caller thread. This has been done on purpose given that the caller
>> >> thread can always issue its core serializing instruction from user-space on
>> >> its own.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > That said, I don't mind including self, these aren't fast calls by any
>> >> > means.
>> >>
>> >> I don't mind including self either, but this would require documentation
>> >> updates, including man pages, to state that starting from kernel Y this
>> >> is the guaranteed behavior. It's then tricky for user-space to query what
>> >> the behavior is unless we introduce a new membarrier command for it. So this
>> >> could introduce issues if software written for the newer kernels runs on older
>> >> kernels.
>> >
>> > For rseq at least, if we do this now we don't have this issue -- I
>> > don't think any released kernel has the rseq mode.
>>
>> But for rseq, there is no core-sync. And considering that it is invalid
>> to issue a system call within an rseq critical section (including membarrier),
>> I don't see what we gain by doing a rseq barrier on self ?
>>
>> The only case where it really changes the semantic is for core-sync I think.
>> And in this case, it would be adding an additional core-sync on self. I
>> am OK with doing that considering that it will simplify use of the system
>> call. I'm just wondering how we should document this change in the man page.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>  - membarrier() does not explicitly sync_core() remote CPUs either;
>> >> >>    instead, it relies on the assumption that an IPI will result in a
>> >> >>    core sync.  On x86, I think this may be true in practice, but
>> >> >>    it's not architecturally reliable.  In particular, the SDM and
>> >> >>    APM do not appear to guarantee that interrupt delivery is
>> >> >>    serializing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, I don't think we rely on that, we do rely on interrupt delivery
>> >> > providing order though -- as per the previous email.
>> >> >
>> >> >>    On a preemptible kernel, IPI return can schedule,
>> >> >>    thereby switching to another task in the same mm that was
>> >> >>    sleeping in a syscall.  The new task could then SYSRET back to
>> >> >>    usermode without ever executing IRET.
>> >> >
>> >> > This; I think we all overlooked this scenario.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, this is an issue which needs to be fixed.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> This patch simplifies the code to treat the calling CPU just like
>> >> >> all other CPUs, and explicitly sync_core() on all target CPUs.  This
>> >> >> eliminates the need for the smp_mb() at the end of the function
>> >> >> except in the special case of a targeted remote membarrier().  This
>> >> >> patch updates that code and the comments accordingly.
>> >>
>> >> I am not confident that removing the smp_mb at the end of membarrier is
>> >> an appropriate change, nor that it simplifies the model.
>> >
>> > Ah, but I didn't remove it.  I carefully made sure that every possible
>> > path through the function does an smp_mb() or stronger after all the
>> > cpu_rq reads.  ipi_func(), on_each_cpu(), and the explicit smp_mb()
>> > cover the three cases.
>> >
>> > That being said, if you prefer, I can make the change to skip the
>> > calling CPU, in which case I'll leave the smp_mb() at the end alone.
>>
>> For the memory barrier commands, I prefer skipping self and leaving the
>> smp_mb at the very beginning/end of the system call. Those are the key
>> before/after points we are synchronizing against, and those are simple
>> to document.
>>
> 
> Is there a reason that doing the barrier at the very end could make an
> observable difference?  The two models are:
> 
> membarrier() {
> smp_mb();
> read a bunch of cpu_rq memory and make decisions;
> execute smp_mb() on relevant cpus including self;

you forget the fact that you also add a smp_mb() after each
individual IPI returns, which is why you can get away with removing
the smp_mb at the end of the membarrier syscall without introducing
issues.

> }
> 
> versus
> 
> membarrier() {
> smp_mb();
> read a bunch of cpu_rq memory and make decisions;
> execute smp_mb() on relevant non-self cpus;
> wait for that to finish (acquire-style on the local cpu);
> smp_mb();
> }
> 
> Is the idea that, on a sufficiently weakly ordered architecture, some
> remote CPU could do a store before the IPI and a local load after the
> membarrier() syscall might not observe the load unless the local
> smp_mb() is after the remote smp_mb()?  If so, I'm not entirely
> convinced that this is observably different from the store simply
> occurring after the IPI, but maybe there are some gnarly situations in
> which this could happen.
> 
> If your concern is something along these lines, I could try to write
> up an appropriate comment, and I'll rework the patch.

This is already documented in the scenarios I added as comments in the
patch sitting in the tip tree:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?id=25595eb6aaa9fbb31330f1e0b400642694bc6574

See "Scenario B Userspace thread execution before IPI vs membarrier's memory barrier after completing the IPI"

I think the change you proposed would be technically still OK:

- The callback on self issuing the smp_mb would take care of ensuring
  that at least one memory barrier is issued after loading rq->curr
  state for each cpu.
- The smp_mb after each ipi return would ensure we have barrier ordering
  between the smp_mb in the ipi handler / before the membarrier system
  call returns to userspace.

But then rather than having one clear spot where the smp_mb needs to be
placed and documented, we have a more complex maze of conditions we need
to consider. Hence my preference for keeping the smp_mb at the beginning/end
of the membarrier system call.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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