lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Rough notes from sys_membarrier() lightning BoF
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 03:04:21PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Rough notes from our discussion last Thursday. Please reply to the
> > group with any needed elaborations or corrections.
> >
> > Adding Andy and Michael on CC since this most closely affects their
> > architectures. Also adding Dave Watson and Maged Michael because
> > the preferred approach requires that processes wanting to use the
> > lightweight sys_membarrier() do a registration step.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Problem:
> >
> > 1. The current sys_membarrier() introduces an smp_mb() that
> > is not otherwise required on powerpc.
> >
> > 2. The envisioned JIT variant of sys_membarrier() assumes that
> > the return-to-user instruction sequence handling any change
> > to the usermode instruction stream, and Andy Lutomirski's
> > upcoming changes invalidate this assumption. It is believed
> > that powerpc has a similar issue.
>
> > E. Require that threads register before using sys_membarrier() for
> > private or JIT usage. (The historical implementation using
> > synchronize_sched() would continue to -not- require registration,
> > both for compatibility and because there is no need to do so.)
> >
> > For x86 and powerpc, this registration would set a TIF flag
> > on all of the current process's threads. This flag would be
> > inherited by any later thread creation within that process, and
> > would be cleared by fork() and exec(). When this TIF flag is set,
>
> Why a TIF flag, and why clear it during fork()? If a process registers
> to use private expedited sys_membarrier, shouldn't that apply to
> threads it will create in the future just as much as to threads it has
> already created?

The reason for a TIF flag is to keep this per-architecture, as only
powerpc and x86 need it.

The reason for clearing it during fork() is that fork() creates a new
process initially having but a single thread, which might or might
not use sys_membarrier(). Usually not, as most instances of fork()
are quickly followed by exec(). In addition, if we give an error for
unregistered use of private sys_membarrier(), clearing on fork() gets an
unambiguous error instead of a silent likely failure (due to libraries
being confused by the fork()).

That said, pthread_create() should preserve the flag, as the new thread
will be part of this same process.

> > the return-to-user path would execute additional code that would
> > ensure that ordering and newly JITed code was handled correctly.
> > We believe that checks for these TIF flags could be combined with
> > existing checks to avoid adding any overhead in the common case
> > where the process was not using these sys_membarrier() features.
> >
> > For all other architecture, the registration step would be
> > a no-op.
>
> Don't we want to fail private expedited sys_membarrier calls if the
> process hasn't registered for them? This requires the registration
> call to set a flag for the process, even on architectures where no
> additional memory barriers are actually needed. It can't be a no-op.

Good point, and we did discuss that. Color me forgetful!!!

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-18 21:31    [W:0.084 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site