On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote:
>
> > ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> > mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com wrote:
> >
> >> ----- On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Nicholas Piggin npig...@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
