* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:08:35PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 12/11/2013 09:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, availability could be a problem too, if some CPU (real or
> > > virtual) implements MWAIT but not CLFLUSH.
> > >
> > > In theory we could make mwait an alternatives variant and patch in the
> > > right combination of instructions? The CLFLUSH goes to the same
> > > address as on which the monitoring happens, so it could be considered
> > > one meta-instruction.
> > >
> >
> > The first thing to do is probably to drop the use of thread_info as a
> > wakeup doorbell. It seemed like a good idea at the time -- after all,
> > there is one for each thread -- but it is extremely likely to be dirty
> > in the cache, which is (presumably) what causes these kinds of bugs to
> > be maximally likely. Even if we don't do the CLFLUSH it is likely that
> > the hardware has to do something expensive behind the scenes.
> >
> > So I would like to propose that we switch to using a percpu variable
> > which is a single cache line of nothing at all. It would only ever be
> > touched by MONITOR and for explicit wakeup. Hopefully that will resolve
> > this problem without the need for the CLFLUSH.
>
> The reason we use thread_info::flags is because we need to write
> TIF_NEED_RESCHED into it to wake up anyhow.
>
> Using another cacheline would mean the wakeup path would need to write a
> second cross cpu cacheline -- that is badness too.
>
> So no, I don't think we want to listen to another line.
Seconded ...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
