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,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 25E63C433E0 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:58:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D96207CB for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:58:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="YgwfmSUm" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C7D96207CB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=efficios.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 32F956B000D; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2DE8F6B0023; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1D09C6B0024; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0138.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.138]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074856B000D for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942DC180AD804 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:58:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77044850526.19.power94_160c4e426f04 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E43F1AD1B1 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:58:43 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: power94_160c4e426f04 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7340 Received: from mail.efficios.com (mail.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:58:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2493D297CAB; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:42 -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 jho3kzP0Uhx3; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8552297D0D; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com B8552297D0D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1594925921; bh=4y3OZc0uvqLRNtfhBnb/Pl6FBzMj468Y31eGzsZO15Y=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=YgwfmSUmKI5QGNkVW/ZZ4DkKkDfr6+Hx/88oYF+i0AnoO/Z9FhYpe84gUEYocOQZs 9YhXWYkwGT6T1MBDwQSVG52oBQHsCzbEu3te/aG2x3gC6D4Ct4Tg+ZhasUje9+KMDx hU95kX5H6X+56H71ssixg7KPiZhw6SOybRTXFdnfUfURYh5zYw+0WneFlzLtl/t4Tt JN1LzdW1iz+hxNNqnAVpLaaIAAdfyWLN/KTn9tdroxw0L7iCs0t9rq5BBsFGHyBULI j1YpgVOwQwHVBV5Rdk21VIMyt9QZIbAt3Xw3/fbE14m0SXc+CByVsMsZHcPrXKlX/h dYSAnCv5SaUAA== 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 T-n-DAhdMKvn; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E69297CA8; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Nicholas Piggin , paulmck , Alan Stern Cc: Anton Blanchard , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch , linux-kernel , linux-mm , linuxppc-dev , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , x86 Message-ID: <595582123.17106.1594925921537.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <1370747990.15974.1594915396143.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <1594613902.1wzayj0p15.astroid@bobo.none> <1594647408.wmrazhwjzb.astroid@bobo.none> <284592761.9860.1594649601492.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1594868476.6k5kvx8684.astroid@bobo.none> <1594873644.viept6os6j.astroid@bobo.none> <1494299304.15894.1594914382695.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1370747990.15974.1594915396143.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> 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: cb6zdS0KPjkbq8hxmgetruE+ExgftXKEdKLPFXA9iBY= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5E43F1AD1B1 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 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 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 >>> >>> What you're really ordering is a, g vs 1, 9 right? >>> >>> In other words, 9 must see a if it sees g, g must see 1 if it saw 9, >>> etc. >>> >>> Userspace does not care where the barriers are exactly or what kernel >>> memory accesses might be being ordered by them, so long as there is a >>> mb somewhere between a and g, and 1 and 9. Right? >> >> This is correct. > > Actually, sorry, the above is not quite right. It's been a while > since I looked into the details of membarrier. > > The smp_mb() at the beginning of membarrier() needs to be paired with a > smp_mb() _after_ rq->curr is switched back to the user thread, so the > memory barrier is between store to rq->curr and following user-space > accesses. > > The smp_mb() at the end of membarrier() needs to be paired with the > smp_mb__after_spinlock() at the beginning of schedule, which is > between accesses to userspace memory and switching rq->curr to kthread. > > As to *why* this ordering is needed, I'd have to dig through additional > scenarios from https://lwn.net/Articles/573436/. Or maybe Paul remembers ? Thinking further about this, I'm beginning to consider that maybe we have been overly cautious by requiring memory barriers before and after store to rq->curr. If CPU0 observes a CPU1's rq->curr->mm which differs from its own process (current) while running the membarrier system call, it necessarily means that CPU1 had to issue smp_mb__after_spinlock when entering the scheduler, between any user-space loads/stores and update of rq->curr. 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. Therefore, with the memory barrier at the beginning of __schedule, just observing that CPU1's rq->curr differs from current should guarantee that a memory barrier was issued between any sequentially consistent instructions belonging to the current process on CPU1. Or am I missing/misremembering an important point here ? Thanks, Mathieu > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > >> Note that the accesses to user-space memory can be >> done either by user-space code or kernel code, it doesn't matter. >> However, in order to be considered as happening before/after >> either membarrier or the matching compiler barrier, kernel code >> needs to have causality relationship with user-space execution, >> e.g. user-space does a system call, or returns from a system call. >> >> In the case of io_uring, submitting a request or returning from waiting >> on request completion appear to provide this causality relationship. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mathieu >> >> >> -- >> Mathieu Desnoyers >> EfficiOS Inc. >> http://www.efficios.com > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com