Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:53:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:17:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > munmap() TLB invalidate is limited to those CPUs that actually ran
> > > threads of their process, while this is machine wide.
> > 
> > Or those CPUs running threads of any process mapping the underlying file
> > or whatever.
> 
> That doesn't sound right. munmap() of a shared file only invalidates
> this process's map of it.
> 
> Swapping a file page otoh will indeed touch the union of cpumasks over
> all processes mapping that page.

There are a lot of variations, to be sure.  For whatever it is worth,
the original patch that started this uses mprotect():

https://github.com/msullivan/userspace-rcu/commit/04656b468d418efbc5d934ab07954eb8395a7ab0

> > And in either case, this can span the whole machine.  Plus
> > there are a number of other ways for users to do on-demand full-system
> > IPIs, including any number of ways to wake up large numbers of CPUs,
> > including from unrelated processes.
> 
> Which are those? I thought we significantly reduced those with the nohz
> full work. Most IPI uses now first check if a CPU actually needs the IPI
> before sending it IIRC.

If the task being awakened is higher priority than the task currently
running on a given CPU, that CPU still gets an IPI, right?  Or am I
completely confused?

> > But I do plan to add another alternative that is limited to threads of
> > the running process.  I will be carrying both versions to enable those
> > who have been bugging me about this to do testing.
> 
> Sending IPIs to mm_cpumask() might be better than expedited, but I'm
> still hesitant. Just because people want it doesn't mean its a good
> idea. We need to weight this against the potential for abuse.
> 
> People want userspace preempt disable, no matter how hard they want it,
> they're not getting it because its a completely crap idea.

Unlike userspace preempt disable, in this case we get the abuse anyway
via existing mechanisms, as in they are already being abused.  If we
provide a mechanism for this purpose, we at least have the potential
for handling the abuse, for example:

o	"Defanging" sys_membarrier() on systems that are sensitive to
	latency.  For example, this patch can be defanged by booting
	with the rcupdate.rcu_normal=1 kernel boot parameter, which
	causes requests for expedited grace periods to instead use
	normal grace periods.

o	Detecting and responding to abuse.  For example, perhaps if there
	are more than (say) 50 expedited sys_membarrier()s within a given
	jiffy, the excess sys_membarrier()s are non-expedited.

o	Batching optimizations allow large number of concurrent requests
	to be handled with fewer grace periods -- and both normal and
	expedited grace periods already do exactly this.

This horse is already out, so trying to shut the gate won't be effective.

							Thanx, Paul