[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [PATCH for 5.5 1/2] rseq: Fix: Clarify rseq.h UAPI rseq_cs memory reclaim requirements
----- On Dec 20, 2019, at 4:15 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> ----- On Dec 20, 2019, at 3:57 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>>> ----- On Dec 20, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rseq.h b/include/uapi/linux/rseq.h
>>>>> index 9a402fdb60e9..6f26b0b148a6 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rseq.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rseq.h
>>>>> @@ -100,7 +100,9 @@ struct rseq {
>>>>> * instruction sequence block, as well as when the kernel detects that
>>>>> * it is preempting or delivering a signal outside of the range
>>>>> * targeted by the rseq_cs. Also needs to be set to NULL by user-space
>>>>> - * before reclaiming memory that contains the targeted struct rseq_cs.
>>>>> + * before reclaiming memory that contains the targeted struct rseq_cs
>>>>> + * or reclaiming memory that contains the code refered to by the
>>>>> + * start_ip and post_commit_offset fields of struct rseq_cs.
>>>> Maybe mention that it's good practice to clear rseq_cs before
>>>> returning from a function that contains a restartable sequence?
>>> Unfortunately, clearing it is not free. Considering that rseq is meant to
>>> be used in very hot code paths, it would be preferable that applications
>>> clear it in the very infrequent case where the rseq_cs or code will
>>> vanish (e.g. dlclose or JIT reclaim), and not require it to be cleared
>>> after each critical section. I am therefore reluctant to document the
>>> behavior you describe as a "good practice" for rseq.
>> You already have to write to rseq_cs before entering the critical
>> section, right? Then you've already determined the address, and the
>> cache line is already hot, so it really should be close to zero cost.
> Considering that overall rseq executes in fraction of nanoseconds on
> some architectures, adding an extra store is perhaps close to zero,
> but still significantly degrades performance.
>> I mean, you can still discard the advice, but you do so ad your own
>> peril …
> I am also uncomfortable leaving this to the end user. One possibility
> would be to extend rseq or membarrier to add a kind of "rseq-clear"
> barrier, which would ensure that the kernel will have cleared the
> rseq_cs field for each thread belonging to the current process. glibc
> could then call this barrier before dlclose.
> This is slightly different from another rseq-barrier that has been
> requested by Paul Turner: a way to ensure that all previously
> running rseq critical sections have completed or aborted.
> AFAIU, the desiderata for each of the 2 use-cases is as follows:
> rseq-barrier: guarantee that all prior rseq critical sections have
> completed or aborted for the current process or for a set of registered
> processes. Allows doing RCU-like algorithms within rseq critical sections.
> rseq-clear: guarantee that the rseq_cs field is cleared for each thread
> belonging to the current process before the barrier system call returns
> to the caller. Aborts currently running rseq critical sections for all
> threads belonging to the current process. The use-case is to allow
> dlclose and JIT reclaim to clear any leftover reference to struct
> rseq_cs or code which are going to be reclaimed.

Just to clarify: should the discussion here prevent the UAPI documentation
change from being merged into the Linux kernel ? Our discussion seems to be
related to integration of rseq into glibc, rather than the kernel UAPI per se.



Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-06 20:09    [W:0.058 / U:2.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site