From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751719Ab0AGRbY (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:31:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751449Ab0AGRbX (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:31:23 -0500 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:35488 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751444Ab0AGRbW (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:31:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:31:18 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Josh Triplett , Mathieu Desnoyers , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , 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 Message-ID: <20100107173118.GG6764@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20100107044007.GA22863@Krystal> <1262842854.28171.3710.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20100107061955.GC25786@Krystal> <20100107063558.GC12939@feather> <1262853855.4049.86.camel@laptop> <20100107165249.GE6764@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1262884716.4049.103.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1262884716.4049.103.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 06:18:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 08:52 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 22:35 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > > > > The number of threads doesn't matter nearly as much as the number of > > > > threads typically running at a time compared to the number of > > > > processors. Of course, we can't measure that as easily, but I don't > > > > know that your proposed heuristic would approximate it well. > > > > > > Quite agreed, and not disturbing RT tasks is even more important. > > > > OK, so I stand un-Reviewed-by twice in one morning. ;-) > > > > > A simple: > > > > > > for_each_cpu(cpu, current->mm->cpu_vm_mask) { > > > if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm) > > > smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, NULL, 1); > > > } > > > > > > seems far preferable over anything else, if you really want you can use > > > a cpumask to copy cpu_vm_mask in and unset bits and use the mask with > > > smp_call_function_any(), but that includes having to allocate the > > > cpumask, which might or might not be too expensive for Mathieu. > > > > This would be vulnerable to the sys_membarrier() CPU seeing an old value > > of cpu_curr(cpu)->mm, and that other task seeing the old value of the > > pointer we are trying to RCU-destroy, right? > > Right, so I was thinking that since you want a mb to be executed when > calling sys_membarrier(). If you observe a matching ->mm but the cpu has > since scheduled, we're good since it scheduled (but we'll still send the > IPI anyway), if we do not observe it because the task gets scheduled in > after we do the iteration we're still good because it scheduled. Something like the following for sys_membarrier(), then? smp_mb(); for_each_cpu(cpu, current->mm->cpu_vm_mask) { if (cpu_curr(cpu)->mm == current->mm) smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, NULL, 1); } Then the code changing ->mm on the other CPU also needs to have a full smp_mb() somewhere after the change to ->mm, but before starting user-space execution. Which it might well just due to overhead, but we need to make sure that someone doesn't optimize us out of existence. Thanx, Paul > As to needing to keep rcu_read_lock() around the iteration, for sure we > need that to ensure the remote task_struct reference we take is valid. >