Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode

Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-17T16:22:53Z

----- On Jul 17, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:

>> > 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.
>
> The memory barrier at the end of membarrier() on CPU0 is necessary in
> order to enforce the guarantee that any writes occurring on CPU1 before
> the membarrier() is executed will be visible to any code executing on
> CPU0 after the membarrier(). Ignoring the kthread issue, we can have:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> x = 1
> barrier()
> y = 1
> r2 = y
> membarrier():
> a: smp_mb()
> b: send IPI IPI-induced mb
> c: smp_mb()
> r1 = x
>
> The writes to x and y are unordered by the hardware, so it's possible to
> have r2 = 1 even though the write to x doesn't execute until b. If the
> memory barrier at c is omitted then "r1 = x" can be reordered before b
> (although not before a), so we get r1 = 0. This violates the guarantee
> that membarrier() is supposed to provide.
>
> The timing of the memory barrier at c has to ensure that it executes
> after the IPI-induced memory barrier on CPU1. If it happened before
> then we could still end up with r1 = 0. That's why the pairing matters.
>
> I hope this helps your head get properly wrapped. :-)

It does help a bit! ;-)

This explains this part of the comment near the smp_mb at the end of membarrier:

* Memory barrier on the caller thread _after_ we finished
* waiting for the last IPI. [...]

However, it does not explain why it needs to be paired with a barrier in the
scheduler, clearly for the case where the IPI is skipped. I wonder whether this part
of the comment is factually correct:

* [...] Matches memory barriers around rq->curr modification in scheduler.

Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.