Re: [PATCH 2/2] membarrier: riscv: Provide core serializing command

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

On 2023-11-27 05:32, Andrea Parri wrote:
> RISC-V uses xRET instructions on return from interrupt and to go back
> to user-space; the xRET instruction is not core serializing.
> 
> Use FENCE.I for providing core serialization as follows:
> 
>   - by calling sync_core_before_usermode() on return from interrupt (cf.
>     ipi_sync_core()),
> 
>   - via switch_mm() and sync_core_before_usermode() (respectively, for
>     uthread->uthread and kthread->uthread transitions) to go back to
>     user-space.
> 
> On RISC-V, the serialization in switch_mm() is activated by resetting
> the icache_stale_mask of the mm at prepare_sync_core_cmd().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
> ---

[...]

> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +/*
> + * Ensure the next switch_mm() on every CPU issues a core serializing
> + * instruction for the given @mm.
> + */
> +static inline void prepare_sync_core_cmd(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +	cpumask_setall(&mm->context.icache_stale_mask);

I am concerned about the possibility that this change lacks two barriers in the
following scenario:

On a transition from uthread -> uthread on [CPU 0], from a thread belonging to
another mm to a thread belonging to the mm [!mm -> mm] for which a concurrent
membarrier sync-core is done on [CPU 1]:

- [CPU 1] sets all bits in the mm icache_stale_mask [A]. There are no barriers
   associated with these stores.

- [CPU 0] store to rq->curr [B] (by the scheduler) vs [CPU 1] loads rq->curr [C]
   within membarrier to decide if the IPI should be skipped. Let's say CPU 1 observes
   cpu_rq(0)->curr->mm != mm, so it skips the IPI.

- This means membarrier relies on switch_mm() to issue the sync-core.

- [CPU 0] switch_mm() loads [D] the icache_stale_mask. If the bit is zero, switch_mm()
   may incorrectly skip the sync-core.

AFAIU, [C] can be reordered before [A] because there is no barrier between those
operations within membarrier. I suspect it can cause the switch_mm() code to skip
a needed sync-core.

AFAIU, [D] can be reordered before [B] because there is no documented barrier
between those operations within the scheduler, which can also cause switch_mm()
to skip a needed sync-core.

We possibly have a similar scenario for uthread->uthread when the scheduler
switches between mm -> !mm.

One way to fix this would be to add the following barriers:

- A smp_mb() between [A] and [C], possibly just after cpumask_setall() in
   prepare_sync_core_cmd(), with comments detailing the ordering it guarantees,
- A smp_mb() between [B] and [D], possibly just before cpumask_test_cpu() in
   flush_icache_deferred(), with appropriate comments.

Am I missing something ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void prepare_sync_core_cmd(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> +
> +#endif /* _ASM_RISCV_SYNC_CORE_H */

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com