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 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 0EF6EC433ED for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:44:48 +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 7C1B52076A for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="oGIDAZ6E" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7C1B52076A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=efficios.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 4B7XRc3rPwzDrP7 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:44:44 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=efficios.com (client-ip=167.114.26.124; helo=mail.efficios.com; envelope-from=compudj@efficios.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=efficios.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=oGIDAZ6E; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.efficios.com (mail.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B7XKb0KkczDrNJ for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:39:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9DE29F146; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:39:26 -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 a15JU_fDvL6I; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BDF29EF4F; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:39:25 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 97BDF29EF4F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1594993165; bh=ho3rQgiZeUOl9J/OSDI/gUB2Ws43sIkMwoNwsX55GPA=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=oGIDAZ6EOIzYWMIZ5+6XDCyoz4E4lrtFs31tP5HpcGze+6LjTM3T0kPAIrN4uUg8s 7kFHqjKF43K3O5IvtcK87G1flnjoG0QUJ5E86lfx17AqcimzhK6xRNvSwHf+AgIo6A VTQ2wZF3iQG+rAu/otjNMFRnvOVWLBqOaP6fNHHa/9OAbOwjjI41BB7GXPSHiVPrWn CRb7rbHFWfvwQlxcPBfZL8R7AHk3SgfbPk5rGherwvbO252Mrypgj0lzJGyvRht8x0 1dkpbYYjyg+w9bVx9a6hbpigNgs9rgFGWum+fLWjUjj1F9F+NksTfndzkaMUql9E1F zM652Us5g+YcQ== 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 HrNAfA0SCl91; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809AA29F380; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 09:39:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Alan Stern Message-ID: <1770378591.18523.1594993165391.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <20200716212416.GA1126458@rowland.harvard.edu> References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <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> <595582123.17106.1594925921537.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200716212416.GA1126458@rowland.harvard.edu> 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: e+Q5q0VLw7mhLri8n+Io1sYRjSAWBg== 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: linux-arch , paulmck , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , x86 , linux-kernel , Nicholas Piggin , linux-mm , Andy Lutomirski , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Alan Stern stern@rowland.harvard.edu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> ----- 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 ? > > Is it correct to say that the switch_to operations in 5 and 7 include > memory barriers? If they do, then skipping the IPI should be okay. > > The reason is as follows: The guarantee you need to enforce is that > anything written by CPU0 before the membarrier() will be visible to CPU1 > after it returns to user mode. Let's say that a writes to X and 9 > reads from X. > > Then we have an instance of the Store Buffer pattern: > > CPU0 CPU1 > a. Write X 6. Write rq->curr for user thread > c. smp_mb() 7. switch_to memory barrier > d. Read rq->curr 9. Read X > > In this pattern, the memory barriers make it impossible for both reads > to miss their corresponding writes. Since d does fail to read 6 (it > sees the earlier value stored by 4), 9 must read a. > > The other guarantee you need is that g on CPU0 will observe anything > written by CPU1 in 1. This is easier to see, using the fact that 3 is a > memory barrier and d reads from 4. Right, and Nick's reply involving pairs of loads/stores on each side clarifies the situation even further. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com