From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v2)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:47:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1263034063.557.6495.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100108235649.GA18477@Krystal>
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 18:56 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Index: linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/kernel/sched.c 2010-01-06 23:23:34.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c 2010-01-08 18:17:44.000000000 -0500
> @@ -119,6 +119,11 @@
> */
> #define RUNTIME_INF ((u64)~0ULL)
>
> +/*
> + * IPI vs cpumask broadcast threshold. Threshold of 1 IPI.
> + */
> +#define ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD 1
> +
> static inline int rt_policy(int policy)
> {
> if (unlikely(policy == SCHED_FIFO || policy == SCHED_RR))
> @@ -10822,6 +10827,124 @@ struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys = {
> };
> #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT */
>
> +/*
> + * Execute a memory barrier on all CPUs on SMP systems.
> + * Do not rely on implicit barriers in smp_call_function(), just in case they
> + * are ever relaxed in the future.
> + */
> +static void membarrier_ipi(void *unused)
> +{
> + smp_mb();
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Handle out-of-mem by sending per-cpu IPIs instead.
> + */
> +static void membarrier_retry(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)) {
> + if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, membarrier_ipi,
> + NULL, 1);
> + }
> +}
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE0(membarrier)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + int cpu, i, cpu_ipi[ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD], nr_cpus = 0;
> + cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
> + int this_cpu;
> +
> + if (likely(!thread_group_empty(current))) {
> + rcu_read_lock(); /* protect cpu_curr(cpu)-> access */
> + /*
> + * We don't need to include ourself in IPI, as we already
> + * surround our execution with memory barriers. We also
> + * don't have to disable preemption here, because if we
> + * migrate out of "this_cpu", then there is an implied memory
> + * barrier for the thread now running on "this_cpu".
> + */
> + this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
How is this not a bug?
> + /*
> + * Memory barrier on the caller thread _before_ the first
> + * cpu_curr(cpu)->mm read and also before sending first IPI.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> + /* Get CPU IDs up to threshold */
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(current->mm)) {
> + if (unlikely(cpu == this_cpu))
> + continue;
> + if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm) {
> + if (nr_cpus == ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD) {
> + nr_cpus++;
> + break;
> + }
> + cpu_ipi[nr_cpus++] = cpu;
> + }
> + }
> + if (likely(nr_cpus <= ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD)) {
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_cpus; i++) {
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu_ipi[i],
> + membarrier_ipi,
> + NULL, 1);
> + }
> + } else {
> + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmpmask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> + membarrier_retry();
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> + for (i = 0; i < ADAPT_IPI_THRESHOLD; i++)
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu_ipi[i], tmpmask);
> + /* Continue previous for_each_cpu() */
> + do {
> + if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm)
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);
> + cpu = cpumask_next(cpu,
> + mm_cpumask(current->mm));
> + if (unlikely(cpu == this_cpu))
> + continue;
> + } while (cpu < nr_cpu_ids);
> + preempt_disable(); /* explicitly required */
This seems to indicate the same.
> + smp_call_function_many(tmpmask, membarrier_ipi, NULL,
> + 1);
> + preempt_enable();
> + free_cpumask_var(tmpmask);
> + }
> +unlock:
> + /*
> + * Memory barrier on the caller thread _after_ we finished
> + * waiting for the last IPI and also after reading the last
> + * cpu_curr(cpu)->mm.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_SMP */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
>
> int rcu_expedited_torture_stats(char *page)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-09 10:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-08 23:56 [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v2) Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-09 10:47 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-01-09 16:16 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1263034063.557.6495.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox