[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 2/3] scheduler: add full memory barriers upon task switch at runqueue lock/unlock
* Linus Torvalds ( wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > Here is the detailed execution scenario showing the race.
> No. You've added random smp_mb() calls, but you don't actually show what
> the f*ck they are protecting against.
> For example
> > First sys_membarrier smp_mb():
> I'm not AT ALL interested in the sys_membarrier() parts. You can hav ea
> million memory barriers there, and I won't care. I'm interested in what
> you think the memory barriers elsewhere protect against. It's a barrier
> between _which_ two operations?
> You can't say it's a barrier "around" the
> cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask, cpu);
> because a barrier is between two things. So if you want to add two
> barriers around that mm_cpumask acces, you need to describe the _three_
> events you're barriers between in that call-path (with mm_cpumask being
> just one of them)
> And then, once you've described _those_ three events, you describe what
> the sys_membarrier interaction is, and how mm_cpumask is involved there.
> I'm not interested in the user-space code. Don't even quote it. It's
> irrelevant apart from the actual semantics you want to guarantee for the
> new membarrier() system call. So don't quote the code, just explain what
> the actual barriers are.

The two event pairs we are looking at are:

Pair 1)

* memory accesses (load/stores) performed by user-space thread before
context switch.
* cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));

Pair 2)

* cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
* memory accessses (load/stores) performed by user-space thread after
context switch.

I can see two ways to add memory barriers in switch_mm that would
provide ordering for these two memory access pairs:

Either A)

cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));

or B)

cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));

(B) seems like a clear win, as we get the ordering right for both pairs
with a single memory barrier, but I don't know if changing the set/clear
bit order could have nasty side-effects on other mm_cpumask users.

sys_membarrier uses the mm_cpumask to iterate on all CPUs on which the
current process's mm is in use, so it can issue a smp_mb() through an
IPI on all CPUs that need it. Without appropriate ordering of pairs 1-2
detailed above, we could miss a CPU that actually needs a memory



Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-01 20:59    [W:0.154 / U:6.460 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site