lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [24]   [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 (v2)
----- On Aug 24, 2020, at 10:06 PM, Boqun Feng boqun.feng@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:27:49AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Aug 16, 2020, at 11:29 AM, Boqun Feng boqun.feng@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:43:57PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >> Add comments and memory barrier to kthread_use_mm and kthread_unuse_mm
>> >> to allow the effect of membarrier(2) to apply to kthreads accessing
>> >> user-space memory as well.
>> >>
>> >> Given that no prior kthread use this guarantee and that it only affects
>> >> kthreads, adding this guarantee does not affect user-space ABI.
>> >>
>> >> Refine the check in membarrier_global_expedited to exclude runqueues
>> >> running the idle thread rather than all kthreads from the IPI cpumask.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
>> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>> >> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
>> >> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
>> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> >> ---
>> >> Changes since v1:
>> >> - Add WARN_ON_ONCE(current->mm) in play_idle_precise (PeterZ),
>> >> - Use smp_mb__after_spinlock rather than smp_mb after task_lock.
>> >> ---
>> >> kernel/kthread.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> >> kernel/sched/idle.c | 1 +
>> >> kernel/sched/membarrier.c | 8 ++------
>> >> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
>> >> index 3edaa380dc7b..77aaaa7bc8d9 100644
>> >> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
>> >> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
>> >> @@ -1255,8 +1255,19 @@ void kthread_use_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> >> finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
>> >> #endif
>> >>
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * When a kthread starts operating on an address space, the loop
>> >> + * in membarrier_{private,global}_expedited() may not observe
>> >> + * that tsk->mm, and not issue an IPI. Membarrier requires a
>> >> + * memory barrier after storing to tsk->mm, before accessing
>> >> + * user-space memory. A full memory barrier for membarrier
>> >> + * {PRIVATE,GLOBAL}_EXPEDITED is implicitly provided by
>> >> + * mmdrop(), or explicitly with smp_mb().
>> >> + */
>> >> if (active_mm != mm)
>> >> mmdrop(active_mm);
>> >> + else
>> >> + smp_mb();
>> >
>> > Similar question here: could smp_mb() guarantee the correctness of
>> > GLOBAL_EXPEDITED? Don't you need membarrier_switch_mm() here and in
>> > kthread_unuse_mm(), too?
>> >
>> > Am I miss something here?
>>
>> I think you have a good point there. Which brings me to wonder why we
>> don't have membarrier_switch_mm() when entering/leaving lazy TLB mode.
>> This means an IPI can be sent to a kthread even if it does not use an
>> mm, just because the membarrier state in the runqueue is that of the
>> active_mm.
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>
> Right, I think we should also handle the percpu membarrier_state. The
> basic rule is whenever we change current->mm or current (i.e. rq->curr)
> itself, we need to update the percpu membarrier_state accordingly.

OK, so as we introduce IPIs to kthreads which are using kthread_use_mm, we need to
reconsider how the scheduler deals with runqueues entering lazy TLB state. Currently,
membarrier_switch_mm() is not issued when entering lazy TLB state. But as we
start considering kthreads as candidates for sending IPIs, we need to update
the rq->membarrier_state whenever we enter lazy TLB state as well.

So I plan to do this change to cover this:

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 84758f34cdb0..44521dc5602a 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.
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 3fd283892761..481149066086 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -2592,12 +2592,13 @@ static inline void membarrier_switch_mm(struct rq *rq,
struct mm_struct *prev_mm,
struct mm_struct *next_mm)
{
- int membarrier_state;
+ int membarrier_state = 0;

if (prev_mm == next_mm)
return;

- membarrier_state = atomic_read(&next_mm->membarrier_state);
+ if (next_mm)
+ membarrier_state = atomic_read(&next_mm->membarrier_state);
if (READ_ONCE(rq->membarrier_state) == membarrier_state)
return;

Thoughts ?
Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-24 17:27    [W:0.069 / U:1.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site