From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@ozlabs.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:24:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200716212416.GA1126458@rowland.harvard.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <595582123.17106.1594925921537.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
>
> > ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> > mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
> >
> >> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> I should be more complete here, especially since I was complaining
> >>> about unclear barrier comment :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> CPU0 CPU1
> >>> a. user stuff 1. user stuff
> >>> b. membarrier() 2. enter kernel
> >>> c. smp_mb() 3. smp_mb__after_spinlock(); // in __schedule
> >>> d. read rq->curr 4. rq->curr switched to kthread
> >>> e. is kthread, skip IPI 5. switch_to kthread
> >>> f. return to user 6. rq->curr switched to user thread
> >>> g. user stuff 7. switch_to user thread
> >>> 8. exit kernel
> >>> 9. more user stuff
> >>>
> >>> What you're really ordering is a, g vs 1, 9 right?
> >>>
> >>> In other words, 9 must see a if it sees g, g must see 1 if it saw 9,
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> Userspace does not care where the barriers are exactly or what kernel
> >>> memory accesses might be being ordered by them, so long as there is a
> >>> mb somewhere between a and g, and 1 and 9. Right?
> >>
> >> This is correct.
> >
> > Actually, sorry, the above is not quite right. It's been a while
> > since I looked into the details of membarrier.
> >
> > The smp_mb() at the beginning of membarrier() needs to be paired with a
> > smp_mb() _after_ rq->curr is switched back to the user thread, so the
> > memory barrier is between store to rq->curr and following user-space
> > accesses.
> >
> > The smp_mb() at the end of membarrier() needs to be paired with the
> > smp_mb__after_spinlock() at the beginning of schedule, which is
> > between accesses to userspace memory and switching rq->curr to kthread.
> >
> > As to *why* this ordering is needed, I'd have to dig through additional
> > scenarios from https://lwn.net/Articles/573436/. Or maybe Paul remembers ?
>
> Thinking further about this, I'm beginning to consider that maybe we have been
> overly cautious by requiring memory barriers before and after store to rq->curr.
>
> If CPU0 observes a CPU1's rq->curr->mm which differs from its own process (current)
> while running the membarrier system call, it necessarily means that CPU1 had
> to issue smp_mb__after_spinlock when entering the scheduler, between any user-space
> loads/stores and update of rq->curr.
>
> Requiring a memory barrier between update of rq->curr (back to current process's
> thread) and following user-space memory accesses does not seem to guarantee
> anything more than what the initial barrier at the beginning of __schedule already
> provides, because the guarantees are only about accesses to user-space memory.
>
> Therefore, with the memory barrier at the beginning of __schedule, just observing that
> CPU1's rq->curr differs from current should guarantee that a memory barrier was issued
> between any sequentially consistent instructions belonging to the current process on
> CPU1.
>
> Or am I missing/misremembering an important point here ?
Is it correct to say that the switch_to operations in 5 and 7 include
memory barriers? If they do, then skipping the IPI should be okay.
The reason is as follows: The guarantee you need to enforce is that
anything written by CPU0 before the membarrier() will be visible to CPU1
after it returns to user mode. Let's say that a writes to X and 9
reads from X.
Then we have an instance of the Store Buffer pattern:
CPU0 CPU1
a. Write X 6. Write rq->curr for user thread
c. smp_mb() 7. switch_to memory barrier
d. Read rq->curr 9. Read X
In this pattern, the memory barriers make it impossible for both reads
to miss their corresponding writes. Since d does fail to read 6 (it
sees the earlier value stored by 4), 9 must read a.
The other guarantee you need is that g on CPU0 will observe anything
written by CPU1 in 1. This is easier to see, using the fact that 3 is a
memory barrier and d reads from 4.
Alan Stern
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-16 21:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-10 1:56 [RFC PATCH 0/7] mmu context cleanup, lazy tlb cleanup, Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] asm-generic: add generic MMU versions of mmu context functions Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] arch: use asm-generic mmu context for no-op implementations Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] mm: introduce exit_lazy_tlb Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-10 14:02 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-10 17:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-13 4:45 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-13 13:47 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-13 14:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-13 15:48 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-13 16:37 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-16 4:15 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-16 4:42 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-16 15:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-16 16:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-16 18:58 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-16 21:24 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2020-07-17 13:39 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-17 14:51 ` Alan Stern
2020-07-17 15:39 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-17 16:11 ` Alan Stern
2020-07-17 16:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-17 17:44 ` Alan Stern
2020-07-17 17:52 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-17 0:00 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-16 5:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-16 6:06 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-16 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-16 10:03 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-16 11:00 ` peterz
2020-07-16 15:34 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-16 23:26 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-17 13:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-20 3:03 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-20 16:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-21 10:04 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-21 13:11 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-21 14:30 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-21 15:06 ` peterz
2020-07-21 15:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-21 15:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-21 15:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-07-10 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] lazy tlb: introduce lazy mm refcount helper functions Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 9:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-10 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] lazy tlb: allow lazy tlb mm switching to be configurable Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 1:56 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] lazy tlb: shoot lazies, a non-refcounting lazy tlb option Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-10 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-13 4:58 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-13 15:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-13 16:48 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-13 18:18 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-14 5:04 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-14 6:31 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-14 12:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-14 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-07-16 2:26 ` Nicholas Piggin
2020-07-16 2:35 ` Nicholas Piggin
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=20200716212416.GA1126458@rowland.harvard.edu \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=anton@ozlabs.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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).