lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm (v3)
----- On Oct 7, 2020, at 11:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 01:25:07PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 2d95dc3f4644..bab6f4f2809f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -3736,6 +3736,8 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
>> */
>> arch_start_context_switch(prev);
>>
>> + membarrier_switch_mm(rq, prev->mm, next->mm);
>> +
>> /*
>> * kernel -> kernel lazy + transfer active
>> * user -> kernel lazy + mmgrab() active
>> @@ -3752,7 +3754,6 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
>> else
>> prev->active_mm = NULL;
>> } else { // to user
>> - membarrier_switch_mm(rq, prev->active_mm, next->mm);
>> /*
>> * sys_membarrier() requires an smp_mb() between setting
>> * rq->curr / membarrier_switch_mm() and returning to userspace.
>
> I was thinking... do we need the above, when:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
>> index 8bc8b8a888b7..e5246580201b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
>> @@ -112,13 +112,9 @@ static int membarrier_global_expedited(void)
>> MEMBARRIER_STATE_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED))
>> continue;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * Skip the CPU if it runs a kernel thread. The scheduler
>> - * leaves the prior task mm in place as an optimization when
>> - * scheduling a kthread.
>> - */
>> + /* Skip the CPU if it runs the idle thread. */
>> p = rcu_dereference(cpu_rq(cpu)->curr);
>> - if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
>
> We retain this in the form:
>
> if ((p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && !p-mm)
> continue;
>
>> + if (is_idle_task(p))
>> continue;
>>
>> __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);
>
> Specifically, we only care about kthreads when they're between
> kthread_use_mm() / kthread_unuse_mm(), and in that case they will have
> updated state already.
>
> It's too late in the day to be sure about the memory ordering though;
> but if we see !->mm, they'll do/have-done switch_mm() which implies
> sufficient barriers().
>
> Hmm?

Interesting. There are two things we want to ensure here:

1) That we issue an IPI or have the kthread issue the proper barriers when a kthread is
using/unusing a mm,
2) That we don't issue an IPI to kthreads with NULL mm, so we don't disturb them.

Moving the membarrier_switch_mm to cover kthread cases was to ensure (2), but if we
add a p->mm NULL check in the global expedited iteration, I think we would be OK
leaving the stale runqueue's membarrier state while in lazy tlb state.

As far as (1) is concerned, I think your idea would work, because as you say we will
have the proper barriers in kthread use/unuse mm.

I just wonder whether having this stale membarrier state for lazy tlb is warranted
performance-wise, as it adds complexity: the rq membarrier state will therefore not be
relevant when we are in lazy tlb mode.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu


--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-07 17:40    [W:0.095 / U:3.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site