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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 CFD6EC433E2 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36F7120771 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="PKb38cek" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 36F7120771 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9vQ200NWzDqcV for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:06:34 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::442; helo=mail-wr1-x442.google.com; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=PKb38cek; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-wr1-x442.google.com (mail-wr1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::442]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B9vMs1j6SzDqYC for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:04:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wr1-x442.google.com with SMTP id z2so20635912wrp.2 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 03:04:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9kfZnFlxwbeCeY/sHPCuLSh6ZnXJJMmz+SDIwwbdu9E=; b=PKb38cekHSneOmGXC/KZtGcmxXFzo0uUDo9PKOuabHRjjJmTO/z6Rf6B8GM7bpGN2l v27E6x4JeQEw+OW9xgdYfjdsPaTbXlp28g77WcgyAvJBTdNXLRhqSncfs9qbTW6Zp7f0 0ZicUgppvRM/IR1tISm7xSLVgjgktfeqSNut3z+JHVfqHG+WrBNpg4DbP20tQvKwtK1r VbtlCDJCISSACgViqAm3m64V97OEEjH0oIcMKkGQWsLszRIAPD7qHrRuLdvN24277gvp LN24jlhKmHcf74zx4absN617y+sHbCDBde6REsImTnErRZqqZaLozMgfqAJQ+nMNRIS8 RgVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9kfZnFlxwbeCeY/sHPCuLSh6ZnXJJMmz+SDIwwbdu9E=; b=i8KTKxXM7bqPzeggPY0Sa580PmGb64ChfAZnjr3WxEAn279gt8jg4WtvZ1cJefjqdp GNPkjiERAFYqSvujaoUd2qc3XiSkcAVPQwEAnlnDBor/90Uh0sGdFhhpVbdJ7b2m+hje Pq/PRvWT0/QWsm9Z6uJjiFsKrQuZo/+HHLXSjBvE2eo7cWzNLhW0FTf3aEoizfTr4xYZ rq0MemwduCIaAqIpqFf+aPP+EC9m0OtiFIqMfFLOwnIODAAkaQEI8nFaMmqitocGEQI+ ybLmEwgYtxmErKnyV50Y5CblUHhaz6O9dkU4ZkEmlQM1wT97kZkUYVQnPkThZIlBFhD2 Hxjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530RbscthhTM2cICWcdv513WJFvThzcj/3wDma9SNmGfXuwVwiF9 y2yyGonkWnm2pvZnwMxLYyM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxkreA8D1lZyT9flEpAyH6rQPt9aOtx31oJEByOFhUEoc5b9sDelo+U3/xY9rHr9llxABm3ZQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e68f:: with SMTP id r15mr17440922wrm.196.1595325875740; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 03:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (110-174-173-27.tpgi.com.au. [110.174.173.27]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s4sm30338553wre.53.2020.07.21.03.04.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 03:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:04:27 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode To: Mathieu Desnoyers References: <1594868476.6k5kvx8684.astroid@bobo.none> <20200716085032.GO10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1594892300.mxnq3b9a77.astroid@bobo.none> <20200716110038.GA119549@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1594906688.ikv6r4gznx.astroid@bobo.none> <1314561373.18530.1594993363050.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1595213677.kxru89dqy2.astroid@bobo.none> <2055788870.20749.1595263590675.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <2055788870.20749.1595263590675.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1595324577.x3bf55tpgu.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-arch , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , x86 , linux-kernel , Andy Lutomirski , linux-mm , Andy Lutomirski , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Excerpts from Mathieu Desnoyers's message of July 21, 2020 2:46 am: > ----- On Jul 19, 2020, at 11:03 PM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@gmail.com wro= te: >=20 >> Excerpts from Mathieu Desnoyers's message of July 17, 2020 11:42 pm: >>> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 7:26 PM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@gmail.com wr= ote: >>> [...] >>>>=20 >>>> membarrier does replace barrier instructions on remote CPUs, which do >>>> order accesses performed by the kernel on the user address space. So >>>> membarrier should too I guess. >>>>=20 >>>> Normal process context accesses like read(2) will do so because they >>>> don't get filtered out from IPIs, but kernel threads using the mm may >>>> not. >>>=20 >>> But it should not be an issue, because membarrier's ordering is only wi= th >>> respect >>> to submit and completion of io_uring requests, which are performed thro= ugh >>> system calls from the context of user-space threads, which are called f= rom the >>> right mm. >>=20 >> Is that true? Can io completions be written into an address space via a >> kernel thread? I don't know the io_uring code well but it looks like >> that's asynchonously using the user mm context. >=20 > Indeed, the io completion appears to be signaled asynchronously between k= ernel > and user-space. Yep, many other places do similar with use_mm. [snip] > So as far as membarrier memory ordering dependencies are concerned, it re= lies > on the store-release/load-acquire dependency chain in the completion queu= e to > order against anything that was done prior to the completed requests. >=20 > What is in-flight while the requests are being serviced provides no memor= y > ordering guarantee whatsoever. Yeah you're probably right in this case I think. Quite likely most kernel=20 tasks that asynchronously write to user memory would at least have some=20 kind of producer-consumer barriers. But is that restriction of all async modifications documented and enforced anywhere? >> How about other memory accesses via kthread_use_mm? Presumably there is >> still ordering requirement there for membarrier, >=20 > Please provide an example case with memory accesses via kthread_use_mm wh= ere > ordering matters to support your concern. I think the concern Andy raised with io_uring was less a specific=20 problem he saw and more a general concern that we have these memory=20 accesses which are not synchronized with membarrier. >> so I really think >> it's a fragile interface with no real way for the user to know how >> kernel threads may use its mm for any particular reason, so membarrier >> should synchronize all possible kernel users as well. >=20 > I strongly doubt so, but perhaps something should be clarified in the doc= umentation > if you have that feeling. I'd rather go the other way and say if you have reasoning or numbers for=20 why PF_KTHREAD is an important optimisation above rq->curr =3D=3D rq->idle then we could think about keeping this subtlety with appropriate=20 documentation added, otherwise we can just kill it and remove all doubt. That being said, the x86 sync core gap that I imagined could be fixed=20 by changing to rq->curr =3D=3D rq->idle test does not actually exist becaus= e the global membarrier does not have a sync core option. So fixing the exit_lazy_tlb points that this series does *should* fix that. So PF_KTHREAD may be less problematic than I thought from implementation point of view, only semantics. Thanks, Nick