From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>,
maged michael <maged.michael@gmail.com>,
gromer <gromer@google.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@scylladb.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:54:08 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170801215408.12a621d6@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170801110023.nawaxnwg7b7iag33@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 13:00:23 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:39:28PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > Right, I just don't see what real problem this opens up that you don't
> > already have when you are not hard partitioned, therefore it doesn't
> > make sense to add a slowdown to the context switch fastpath to close
> > one hole in the sieve.
> >
> > Completely recognizing that other architectures can do it without
> > taking rq lock at all and will not be forced to do so.
>
> If we can limit this to hard partitioned, that would be good indeed.
>
> I'm just trying to avoid having two implementation of this thing. At the
> same time I very much understand your reluctance to add this barrier.
Well I think we could have some kind of
for_each_cpu_where_this_process_is_running macro that is needed to
abstract the arch details.
Presumably we're already going to get two implementations of that one --
I can't imagine x86 would be happy with doing a for_all_cpus iteration
just because arm does not have the cpumask. powerpc will only make that
3 :)
>
> In any case, supposing we can do that intent thing. How horrible would
> something like:
>
>
> context_switch()
> if (unlikely(mm->needs_barrier))
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
>
>
> be? We only need the extra barrier when we switch _into_ mm's that care
> about sys_membarrier() in the first place. At which point they pay the
> price.
Not beautiful :) and it would also have to have an arch speicific bit on
the other side. Although yes it gives a different way to reduce cost without
rq.
So Paul and googling filled me in on the importance of this syscall. Also
I do appreciate the concern about taking rq lock. I just think maybe we
(powerpc) pay a few more cycles in the new syscall rather than context
switch. It will take a little while to get a good idea of performance and
behaviour on bigger systems where this will matter most.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-01 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-27 21:13 [RFC PATCH v2] membarrier: expedited private command Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-07-27 22:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-27 22:41 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-07-27 22:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-07-28 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-28 11:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-28 11:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-28 15:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-07-28 16:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-28 17:06 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-07-29 1:58 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-07-29 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-29 9:45 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-07-29 9:48 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-07-29 10:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-31 19:31 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-07-31 13:20 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-07-31 13:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-01 0:35 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-08-01 1:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2017-08-01 2:00 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-08-01 8:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-01 9:57 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-08-01 10:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-01 10:32 ` Avi Kivity
2017-08-01 10:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-01 10:39 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-08-01 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-01 11:54 ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2017-08-01 13:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-08-01 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-01 23:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-08-02 0:45 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-07-28 15:36 ` 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=20170801215408.12a621d6@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
--to=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=ahh@google.com \
--cc=avi@scylladb.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=davejwatson@fb.com \
--cc=gromer@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maged.michael@gmail.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).