lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v3a)
From
Date
On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 23:29 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Here is an implementation of a new system call, sys_membarrier(), which
> executes a memory barrier on all threads of the current process.

Please start a new thread for new versions, I really didn't find this
until I started reading in date order instead of thread order.


> Index: linux-2.6-lttng/arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h 2010-01-10 19:21:31.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h 2010-01-10 19:21:37.000000000 -0500
> @@ -661,6 +661,8 @@ __SYSCALL(__NR_pwritev, sys_pwritev)
> __SYSCALL(__NR_rt_tgsigqueueinfo, sys_rt_tgsigqueueinfo)
> #define __NR_perf_event_open 298
> __SYSCALL(__NR_perf_event_open, sys_perf_event_open)
> +#define __NR_membarrier 299
> +__SYSCALL(__NR_membarrier, sys_membarrier)
>
> #ifndef __NO_STUBS
> #define __ARCH_WANT_OLD_READDIR
> Index: linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/kernel/sched.c 2010-01-10 19:21:31.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/kernel/sched.c 2010-01-10 22:22:40.000000000 -0500
> @@ -2861,12 +2861,26 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct tas
> */
> arch_start_context_switch(prev);
>
> + /*
> + * sys_membarrier IPI-mb scheme requires a memory barrier between
> + * user-space thread execution and update to mm_cpumask.
> + */
> + if (likely(oldmm) && likely(oldmm != mm))
> + smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
> +
> if (unlikely(!mm)) {
> next->active_mm = oldmm;
> atomic_inc(&oldmm->mm_count);
> enter_lazy_tlb(oldmm, next);
> - } else
> + } else {
> switch_mm(oldmm, mm, next);
> + /*
> + * sys_membarrier IPI-mb scheme requires a memory barrier
> + * between update to mm_cpumask and user-space thread execution.
> + */
> + if (likely(oldmm != mm))
> + smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
> + }
>
> if (unlikely(!prev->mm)) {
> prev->active_mm = NULL;
> @@ -10822,6 +10836,49 @@ struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys = {
> };
> #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT */
>
> +/*
> + * Execute a memory barrier on all active threads from the current process
> + * on SMP systems. Do not rely on implicit barriers in
> + * smp_call_function_many(), just in case they are ever relaxed in the future.
> + */
> +static void membarrier_ipi(void *unused)
> +{
> + smp_mb();
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * sys_membarrier - issue memory barrier on current process running threads
> + *
> + * Execute a memory barrier on all running threads of the current process.
> + * Upon completion, the caller thread is ensured that all process threads
> + * have passed through a state where memory accesses match program order.
> + * (non-running threads are de facto in such a state)
> + */
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE0(membarrier)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + if (unlikely(thread_group_empty(current)))
> + return 0;
> + /*
> + * Memory barrier on the caller thread _before_ sending first
> + * IPI. Matches memory barriers around mm_cpumask modification in
> + * context_switch().
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> + preempt_disable();
> + smp_call_function_many(mm_cpumask(current->mm), membarrier_ipi,
> + NULL, 1);
> + preempt_enable();
> + /*
> + * Memory barrier on the caller thread _after_ we finished
> + * waiting for the last IPI. Matches memory barriers around mm_cpumask
> + * modification in context_switch().
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_SMP */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> #ifndef CONFIG_SMP
>
> int rcu_expedited_torture_stats(char *page)

Right, so here you rely on the arch switch_mm() implementation to keep
mm_cpumask() current, but then stick a memory barrier in the generic
code... seems odd.

x86 switch_mm() does indeed keep it current, but writing cr3 is also a
rather serializing instruction.

Furthermore, do we really need that smp_mb() in the membarrier_ipi()
function? Shouldn't we investigate if either:
- receiving an IPI implies an mb, or
- enter/leave kernelspace implies an mb
?

So while I much like the simplified version, that previous one was
heavily over engineer, I
1) don't like that memory barrier in the generic code,
2) don't think that arch's necessarily keep that mask as tight.

[ even if for x86 smp_mb__{before,after}_clear_bit are a nop, tying that
to switch_mm() semantics just reeks ]
See for example the sparc64 implementation of switch_mm() that only sets
cpus in mm_cpumask(), but only tlb flushes clear them. Also, I wouldn't
know if switch_mm() implies an mb on sparc64.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-11 18:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans