From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] scheduler: add full memory barriers upon task switch at runqueue lock/unlock
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:11:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1265040669.29013.42.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1002010722350.4206@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 07:27 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So what are these magical memory barriers all about?
Mathieu is implementing userspace RCU. In order to make the
rcu_read_locks() fast, they can not be calling memory barriers. What is
needed is on the synchronize_rcu() the writer has to force a mb() on all
CPUs running one of the readers.
The first simple approach that Mathieu made, was to simply send an IPI
to all CPUs and force the mb() to be made. But this lets one process
interfere with other processes needlessly. And us Real-Time folks balked
at the idea since it would allow any process to mess with the running of
a real-time thread.
The next approach was to use the mm_cpumask of the thread and only send
IPIs to the CPUs that are running the thread. But there's a race between
the update of the mm_cpumask and the scheduling of the task. If we send
an IPI to a CPU that is not running the process's thread, it may cause a
little interference with the other thread but nothing to worry about.
The issue is if we miss sending to a process's thread. Then the reader
could be accessing a stale pointer that the writer is modifying after
the userspace synchronize_rcu() call.
The taking of the rq locks was a way to make sure that the update of the
mm_cpumask and the scheduling is in sync. And we know that we are
sending an IPI that is running the process's thread and not missing any
other ones.
But all this got a bit ugly when we tried to avoid grabbing the run
queue locks in the loop to send out IPIs.
Note, I believe that x86 is not affected, since the act of doing the
schedule is in itself a mb(). But this may not be the case on all archs.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-01 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-31 20:52 [patch 0/3] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v8) Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-01-31 20:52 ` [patch 1/3] Create spin lock/spin unlock with distinct memory barrier Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 7:25 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-01 14:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 7:28 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-01 14:10 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 15:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 15:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-01-31 20:52 ` [patch 2/3] scheduler: add full memory barriers upon task switch at runqueue lock/unlock Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 7:33 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-01 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-01 10:11 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-01 10:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-01 10:49 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-01 14:47 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 14:58 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-01 15:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 15:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 16:00 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-02-01 15:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 16:09 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 16:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 16:48 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 17:45 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 18:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 18:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 19:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 20:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 22:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-01 20:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 20:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 22:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 23:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 17:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 17:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-01 16:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-01 16:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-02-01 16:11 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2010-01-31 20:52 ` [patch 3/3] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier (v8) Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1265040669.29013.42.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=nmiell@comcast.net \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®