public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, josh@joshtriplett.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 (v5)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:33:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100114193355.GA23436@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1263495132.28171.3861.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 13:37 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> > To make this painfully clear, I'll reorder the accesses to match that of
> > the CPU to memory:
> > 
> >        CPU 0 (membarrier)                  CPU 1 (another mm -our mm)
> >        <user-space>
> >                                            <kernel-space>
> >                                            switch_mm()
> >                                              smp_mb()
> >                                              clear_mm_cpumask()
> >                                              set_mm_cpumask()
> >                                              smp_mb() (by load_cr3() on x86)
> >                                            switch_to()
> >                                              <buffered current = next>
> >                                            <switch back to user-space>
> >                                            urcu read lock()
> >                                              access critical section data (3)
> >        memory access before membarrier
> >        <call sys_membarrier()>
> >        smp_mb()
> >        mm_cpumask includes CPU 1
> >        rcu_read_lock()
> >        if (CPU 1 mm != our mm)
> >          skip CPU 1.
> 
> I still don't see how the above conditional fails?

First, I just want to fix one detail I had wrong. It does not change the
end result, but it changes the order of the scenario:

  A cpu "current" task struct is not the same thing as that same CPU
rq->curr. So we are talking about the rq->curr update here, not the cpu
"current" task (as I mistakenly assumed previously).

   if (CPU 1 mm != our mm) translates into:

   if (cpu_curr(1)->mm != current->mm)

where cpu_curr(cpu) is:

#define cpu_rq(cpu)             (&per_cpu(runqueues, (cpu)))
#define cpu_curr(cpu)           (cpu_rq(cpu)->curr)

struct rq "curr" field is a struct task_struct *, updated by
schedule() before calling context_switch().

So the requirement is that we need a smp_mb() before and after rq->curr
update in schedule(). The smp_mb() after the update is ensured by
context_switch() -> switch_mm() -> load_cr3(). However, updating my
scenario to match the fact that we are really talking about rq->curr
update here (which happens _before_ switch_mm() and not after), we can
see that the problematic case happens if there is no smp_mb() before
rq->curr update:

It's a case where CPU 1 switches from our mm to another mm:

       CPU 0 (membarrier)                  CPU 1 (another mm -our mm)
       <user-space>                        <user-space>
                                           <buffered access C.S. data>
                                           urcu read unlock()
                                             barrier()
                                             store local gp
                                           <kernel-space>
                                           rq->curr = next (1)
       memory access before membarrier
       <call sys_membarrier()>
       smp_mb()
       mm_cpumask includes CPU 1
       rcu_read_lock()
       if (cpu_curr(1)->mm != our mm)
         skip CPU 1     -> here, rq->curr new version is already visible
       rcu_read_unlock()
       smp_mb()
       <return to user-space>
       memory access after membarrier
       -> this is where we allow freeing
          the old structure although the
          buffered access C.S. data is
          still in flight.
                                           User-space access C.S. data (2)
                                             (buffer flush)
                                           switch_mm()
                                             smp_mb()
                                             clear_mm_cpumask()
                                             set_mm_cpumask()
                                             smp_mb() (by load_cr3() on x86)
                                           switch_to()
                                             <buffered current = next>
                                           <switch back to user-space>
                                             current = next (1) (buffer flush)
                                           access critical section data (3)

As we can see, the reordering of (1) and (2) is problematic, as it lets
the check skip over a CPU that have global side-effects not committed to
memory yet.

Hopefully this explanation helps ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> >        rcu_read_unlock()
> >        smp_mb()
> >        <return to user-space>
> >        memory access after membarrier
> >                                              current = next (1) (buffer flush)
> >                                              read gp
> >                                              store local gp (2)
> > 
> > This should make the problem a bit more evident. Access (3) is done
> > outside of the read-side C.S. as far as the userspace synchronize_rcu()
> > is concerned.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Mathieu
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

  reply	other threads:[~2010-01-14 19:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-01-13  1:37 [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v5) Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-13  3:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-01-13  3:58   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-13  4:47     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-01-13  5:33       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-01-13 15:03       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-14  0:15         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-01-14  2:16           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-14  2:25             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-01-13  5:00 ` Nicholas Miell
2010-01-13  5:31   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-01-13  5:39     ` Nicholas Miell
2010-01-13 14:38       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-13 18:07         ` Nicholas Miell
2010-01-13 18:24           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-13 18:41             ` Nicholas Miell
2010-01-13 19:17               ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-13 19:42                 ` David Daney
2010-01-13 19:53                   ` Nicholas Miell
2010-01-13 23:42                     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-13 15:58       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-01-13 11:07 ` Heiko Carstens
2010-01-13 14:46   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-13 16:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-13 19:36   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-14  9:08     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-14 16:26       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-14 17:03         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-14 17:54           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-14 18:37             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-14 18:52               ` Steven Rostedt
2010-01-14 19:33                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2010-01-14 21:26                   ` Steven Rostedt
2010-01-19 18:37                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-19 19:06                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-20  3:13                       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-20  8:45                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-21 11:26                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-21 16:07                         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-21 16:12                           ` Steven Rostedt
2010-01-21 16:22                             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-21 16:32                               ` Steven Rostedt
2010-01-21 17:02                                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-21 16:17                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-21 17:01                             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-19 19:43                     ` Steven Rostedt
2010-01-14 18:50             ` Steven Rostedt
2010-01-19 16:47         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-19 17:11           ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-19 17:30           ` Steven Rostedt

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=20100114193355.GA23436@Krystal \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
    --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=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --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