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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 B6F14C43467 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:44:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F4D207EA for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:44:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 88F4D207EA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=rowland.harvard.edu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0E2E48D000C; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 06BA68D0003; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:44:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E74658D000C; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:44:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0074.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.74]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB538D0003 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:44:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CEF8248047 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:44:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77048291124.03.smash82_2c03a4b26f0c Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C90149EB for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:44:02 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: smash82_2c03a4b26f0c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4815 Received: from netrider.rowland.org (netrider.rowland.org [192.131.102.5]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1156982 invoked by uid 1000); 17 Jul 2020 13:44:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:44:00 -0400 From: Alan Stern To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Nicholas Piggin , paulmck , Anton Blanchard , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch , linux-kernel , linux-mm , linuxppc-dev , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , x86 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode Message-ID: <20200717174400.GA1156312@rowland.harvard.edu> References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.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> <1697220787.18880.1595000348405.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200717161145.GA1150454@rowland.harvard.edu> <12700909.18968.1595002969773.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12700909.18968.1595002969773.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 22C90149EB X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:22:49PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > ----- 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. The reasoning is pretty much the same as above: CPU0 CPU1 x = 1 barrier() y = 1 r2 = y membarrier(): a: smp_mb() switch to kthread (includes mb) b: read rq->curr == kthread switch to user (includes mb) c: smp_mb() r1 = x Once again, it is possible that x = 1 doesn't become visible to CPU0 until shortly before b. But if c is omitted then "r1 = x" can be reordered before b (to any time after a), so we can have r1 = 0. Here the timing requirement is that c executes after the first memory barrier on CPU1 -- which is one of the ones around the rq->curr modification. (In fact, in this scenario CPU1's switch back to the user process is irrelevant.) Alan Stern