linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: membarrier: document memory ordering scenarios
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 13:25:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200924172508.8724-4-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924172508.8724-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>

Document membarrier ordering scenarios in membarrier.c. Thanks to Alan
Stern for refreshing my memory. Now that I have those in mind, it seems
appropriate to serialize them to comments for posterity.

Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
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>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
---
 kernel/sched/membarrier.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 128 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
index e5246580201b..cddc5df01e40 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
@@ -6,6 +6,134 @@
  */
 #include "sched.h"
 
+/*
+ * For documentation purposes, here are some membarrier ordering
+ * scenarios to keep in mind:
+ *
+ * A) Userspace thread execution after IPI vs membarrier's memory
+ *    barrier before sending the IPI
+ *
+ * Userspace variables:
+ *
+ * int x = 0, y = 0;
+ *
+ * The memory barrier at the start of membarrier() on CPU0 is necessary in
+ * order to enforce the guarantee that any writes occurring on CPU0 before
+ * the membarrier() is executed will be visible to any code executing on
+ * CPU1 after the IPI-induced memory barrier:
+ *
+ *         CPU0                              CPU1
+ *
+ *         x = 1
+ *         membarrier():
+ *           a: smp_mb()
+ *           b: send IPI                       IPI-induced mb
+ *           c: smp_mb()
+ *         r2 = y
+ *                                           y = 1
+ *                                           barrier()
+ *                                           r1 = x
+ *
+ *                     BUG_ON(r1 == 0 && r2 == 0)
+ *
+ * The write to y and load from x by CPU1 are unordered by the hardware,
+ * so it's possible to have "r1 = x" reordered before "y = 1" at any
+ * point after (b).  If the memory barrier at (a) is omitted, then "x = 1"
+ * can be reordered after (a) (although not after (c)), so we get r1 == 0
+ * and r2 == 0.  This violates the guarantee that membarrier() is
+ * supposed by provide.
+ *
+ * The timing of the memory barrier at (a) has to ensure that it executes
+ * before the IPI-induced memory barrier on CPU1.
+ *
+ * B) Userspace thread execution before IPI vs membarrier's memory
+ *    barrier after completing the IPI
+ *
+ * Userspace variables:
+ *
+ * int x = 0, y = 0;
+ *
+ * The memory barrier at the end of membarrier() on CPU0 is necessary in
+ * order to enforce the guarantee that any writes occurring on CPU1 before
+ * the membarrier() is executed will be visible to any code executing on
+ * CPU0 after the membarrier():
+ *
+ *         CPU0                              CPU1
+ *
+ *                                           x = 1
+ *                                           barrier()
+ *                                           y = 1
+ *         r2 = y
+ *         membarrier():
+ *           a: smp_mb()
+ *           b: send IPI                       IPI-induced mb
+ *           c: smp_mb()
+ *         r1 = x
+ *         BUG_ON(r1 == 0 && r2 == 1)
+ *
+ * The writes to x and y are unordered by the hardware, so it's possible to
+ * have "r2 = 1" even though the write to x doesn't execute until (b).  If
+ * the memory barrier at (c) is omitted then "r1 = x" can be reordered
+ * before (b) (although not before (a)), so we get "r1 = 0".  This violates
+ * the guarantee that membarrier() is supposed to provide.
+ *
+ * The timing of the memory barrier at (c) has to ensure that it executes
+ * after the IPI-induced memory barrier on CPU1.
+ *
+ * C) Scheduling userspace thread -> kthread -> userspace thread vs membarrier
+ *
+ *           CPU0                            CPU1
+ *
+ *           membarrier():
+ *           a: smp_mb()
+ *                                           d: switch to kthread (includes mb)
+ *           b: read rq->curr->mm == NULL
+ *                                           e: switch to user (includes mb)
+ *           c: smp_mb()
+ *
+ * Using the scenario from (A), we can show that (a) needs to be paired
+ * with (e). Using the scenario from (B), we can show that (c) needs to
+ * be paired with (d).
+ *
+ * D) exit_mm vs membarrier
+ *
+ * Two thread groups are created, A and B.  Thread group B is created by
+ * issuing clone from group A with flag CLONE_VM set, but not CLONE_THREAD.
+ * Let's assume we have a single thread within each thread group (Thread A
+ * and Thread B).  Thread A runs on CPU0, Thread B runs on CPU1.
+ *
+ *           CPU0                            CPU1
+ *
+ *           membarrier():
+ *             a: smp_mb()
+ *                                           exit_mm():
+ *                                             d: smp_mb()
+ *                                             e: current->mm = NULL
+ *             b: read rq->curr->mm == NULL
+ *             c: smp_mb()
+ *
+ * Using scenario (B), we can show that (c) needs to be paired with (d).
+ *
+ * E) kthread_{use,unuse}_mm vs membarrier
+ *
+ *           CPU0                            CPU1
+ *
+ *           membarrier():
+ *           a: smp_mb()
+ *                                           kthread_unuse_mm()
+ *                                             d: smp_mb()
+ *                                             e: current->mm = NULL
+ *           b: read rq->curr->mm == NULL
+ *                                           kthread_use_mm()
+ *                                             f: current->mm = mm
+ *                                             g: smp_mb()
+ *           c: smp_mb()
+ *
+ * Using the scenario from (A), we can show that (a) needs to be paired
+ * with (g). Using the scenario from (B), we can show that (c) needs to
+ * be paired with (d).
+ */
+
 /*
  * Bitmask made from a "or" of all commands within enum membarrier_cmd,
  * except MEMBARRIER_CMD_QUERY.
-- 
2.17.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-24 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-24 17:25 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Membarrier updates Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-09-24 17:25 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: fix exit_mm vs membarrier (v3) Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-07 14:29   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-07 14:57     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-07 15:09       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-24 17:25 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm (v3) Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-02  8:33   ` [sched] bdfcae1140: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -37.0% regression kernel test robot
2020-10-07 14:50     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-20  3:24       ` [LKP] " Xing Zhengjun
2020-10-20 13:14         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-22  1:54           ` Xing Zhengjun
2020-10-22 13:19             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-23  5:37               ` Xing Zhengjun
2020-10-23 12:34                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-07 15:07   ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm (v3) Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-07 15:39     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-10-07 16:08       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-07 16:11         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-09-24 17:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2020-09-29 17:16 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Membarrier updates Mathieu Desnoyers
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-08-14 16:43 [RFC PATCH 0/3] sched: membarrier updates Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-08-14 16:43 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: membarrier: document memory ordering scenarios 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=20200924172508.8724-4-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    --cc=will@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).