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 10:50:13PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jul 25, 2017, at 5:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:19:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:36:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> >> But it would not be hard for userspace code to force IPIs by repeatedly
> >> awakening higher-priority threads that sleep immediately after being
> >> awakened, right?
> > 
> > RT tasks are not readily available to !root, and the user might have
> > been constrained to a subset of available CPUs.
> > 
> >> > Well, I'm not sure there is an easy means of doing machine wide IPIs for
> >> > !root out there. This would be a first.
> >> > 
> >> > Something along the lines of:
> >> > 
> >> > void dummy(void *arg)
> >> > {
> >> > 	/* IPIs are assumed to be serializing */
> >> > }
> >> > 
> >> > void ipi_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >> > {
> >> > 	cpumask_var_t cpus;
> >> > 	int cpu;
> >> > 
> >> > 	zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpus, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> > 
> >> > 	for_each_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(mm)) {
> >> > 		struct task_struct *p;
> >> > 
> >> > 		/*
> >> > 		 * If the current task of @cpu isn't of this @mm, then
> >> > 		 * it needs a context switch to become one, which will
> >> > 		 * provide the ordering we require.
> >> > 		 */
> >> > 		rcu_read_lock();
> >> > 		p = task_rcu_dereference(&cpu_curr(cpu));
> >> > 		if (p && p->mm == mm)
> >> > 			__cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
> >> > 		rcu_read_unlock();
> >> > 	}
> >> > 
> >> > 	on_each_cpu_mask(cpus, dummy, NULL, 1);
> >> > }
> >> > 
> >> > Would appear to be minimally invasive and only shoot at CPUs we're
> >> > currently running our process on, which greatly reduces the impact.
> >> 
> >> I am good with this approach as well, and I do very much like that it
> >> avoids IPIing CPUs that aren't running our process (at least in the
> >> common case).  But don't we also need added memory ordering?  It is
> >> sort of OK to IPI a CPU that just now switched away from our process,
> >> but not so good to miss IPIing a CPU that switched to our process just
> >> a little before sys_membarrier().
> > 
> > My thinking was that if we observe '!= mm' that CPU will have to do a
> > context switch in order to make it true. That context switch will
> > provide the ordering we're after so all is well.
> > 
> > Quite possible there's a hole in, but since I'm running on fumes someone
> > needs to spell it out for me :-)
> > 
> >> I was intending to base this on the last few versions of a 2010 patch,
> >> but maybe things have changed:
> >> 
> >> 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126358017229620&w=2
> >> 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126436996014016&w=2
> >> 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126601479802978&w=2
> >> 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126970692903302&w=2
> >> 
> >> Discussion here:
> >> 
> >> 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126349766324224&w=2
> >> 
> >> The discussion led to acquiring the runqueue locks, as there was
> >> otherwise a need to add code to the scheduler fastpaths.
> > 
> > TL;DR..  that's far too much to trawl through.
> > 
> >> Some architectures are less precise than others in tracking which
> >> CPUs are running a given process due to ASIDs, though this is
> >> thought to be a non-problem:
> >> 
> >> 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=126716090413065&w=2
> >> 	https://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=126716262815202&w=2
> >> 
> >> Thoughts?
> > 
> > Yes, there are architectures that only accumulate bits in mm_cpumask(),
> > with the additional check to see if the remote task belongs to our MM
> > this should be a non-issue.
> 
> This would implement a MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED (or such) flag
> for expedited process-local effect. This differs from the "SHARED" flag,
> since the SHARED flag affects threads accessing memory mappings shared
> across processes as well.
> 
> I wonder if we could create a MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED_EXPEDITED behavior
> by iterating on all memory mappings mapped into the current process,
> and build a cpumask based on the union of all mm masks encountered ?
> Then we could send the IPI to all cpus belonging to that cpumask. Or
> am I missing something obvious ?

I suspect that something like this would work, but I agree with your 2010
self, who argued that this should be follow-on functionality.  After all,
the user probably needs to be aware of who is sharing for other reasons,
and can then make each process do sys_membarrier().

							Thanx, Paul