From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>,
maged michael <maged.michael@gmail.com>,
gromer <gromer@google.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:10:10 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <121420896.16597.1506093010487.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170922085959.GG10893@tardis>
----- On Sep 22, 2017, at 4:59 AM, Boqun Feng boqun.feng@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:13:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> [...]
>> +static inline void membarrier_arch_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev,
>> + struct task_struct *next)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * Only need the full barrier when switching between processes.
>> + */
>> + if (likely(!test_ti_thread_flag(task_thread_info(next),
>> + TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED)
>> + || prev->mm == next->mm))
>
> And we also don't need the smp_mb() if !prev->mm, because switching from
> kernel to user will have a smp_mb() implied by mmdrop()?
Right. And we also don't need it when switching from userspace to kernel
thread neither. Something like this:
static inline void membarrier_arch_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev,
struct task_struct *next)
{
/*
* Only need the full barrier when switching between processes.
* Barrier when switching from kernel to userspace is not
* required here, given that it is implied by mmdrop(). Barrier
* when switching from userspace to kernel is not needed after
* store to rq->curr.
*/
if (likely(!test_ti_thread_flag(task_thread_info(next),
TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED)
|| !prev->mm || !next->mm || prev->mm == next->mm))
return;
/*
* The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
* after storing to rq->curr, before going back to user-space.
*/
smp_mb();
}
>
>> + return;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
>> + * after storing to rq->curr, before going back to user-space.
>> + */
>> + smp_mb();
>> +}
>
> [...]
>
>> +static inline void membarrier_fork(struct task_struct *t,
>> + unsigned long clone_flags)
>> +{
>> + if (!current->mm || !t->mm)
>> + return;
>> + t->mm->membarrier_private_expedited =
>> + current->mm->membarrier_private_expedited;
>
> Have we already done the copy of ->membarrier_private_expedited in
> copy_mm()?
copy_mm() is performed without holding current->sighand->siglock, so
it appears to be racing with concurrent membarrier register cmd.
However, given that it is a single flag updated with WRITE_ONCE()
and read with READ_ONCE(), it might be OK to rely on copy_mm there.
If userspace runs registration concurrently with fork, they should
not expect the child to be specifically registered or unregistered.
So yes, I think you are right about removing this copy and relying on
copy_mm() instead. I also think we can improve membarrier_arch_fork()
on powerpc to test the current thread flag rather than using current->mm.
Which leads to those two changes:
static inline void membarrier_fork(struct task_struct *t,
unsigned long clone_flags)
{
/*
* Prior copy_mm() copies the membarrier_private_expedited field
* from current->mm to t->mm.
*/
membarrier_arch_fork(t, clone_flags);
}
And on PowerPC:
static inline void membarrier_arch_fork(struct task_struct *t,
unsigned long clone_flags)
{
/*
* Coherence of TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED against thread
* fork is protected by siglock. membarrier_arch_fork is called
* with siglock held.
*/
if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED))
set_ti_thread_flag(task_thread_info(t),
TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED);
}
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
>> + membarrier_arch_fork(t, clone_flags);
>> +}
>> +static inline void membarrier_execve(struct task_struct *t)
>> +{
>> + t->mm->membarrier_private_expedited = 0;
>> + membarrier_arch_execve(t);
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline void membarrier_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev,
>> + struct task_struct *next)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +static inline void membarrier_fork(struct task_struct *t,
>> + unsigned long clone_flags)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +static inline void membarrier_execve(struct task_struct *t)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
> [...]
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-22 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-19 22:13 [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-09-19 22:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-09-19 22:13 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] membarrier: selftest: Test private expedited cmd Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-09-19 22:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-09-22 3:22 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Boqun Feng
2017-09-22 3:30 ` Boqun Feng
2017-09-22 5:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-09-22 8:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-22 8:56 ` Boqun Feng
2017-09-22 8:59 ` Boqun Feng
2017-09-22 15:10 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2017-09-24 13:30 ` Boqun Feng
2017-09-24 13:30 ` Boqun Feng
2017-09-24 14:23 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-09-25 12:10 ` Boqun Feng
2017-09-25 12:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-25 12:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=121420896.16597.1506093010487.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=ahh@google.com \
--cc=avi@scylladb.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=davejwatson@fb.com \
--cc=gromer@google.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=maged.michael@gmail.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).