lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm
----- On Aug 4, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:00:10PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Add comments and memory barrier to kthread_use_mm and kthread_unuse_mm
>> to allow the effect of membarrier(2) to apply to kthreads accessing
>> user-space memory as well.
>>
>> Given that no prior kthread use this guarantee and that it only affects
>> kthreads, adding this guarantee does not affect user-space ABI.
>>
>> Refine the check in membarrier_global_expedited to exclude runqueues
>> running the idle thread rather than all kthreads from the IPI cpumask.
>>
>> This patch applies on top of this patch from Peter Zijlstra:
>> "mm: fix kthread_use_mm() vs TLB invalidate" currently in Andrew
>> Morton's tree.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/kthread.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> kernel/sched/membarrier.c | 8 ++------
>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
>> index 48925b17920e..ef2435517f14 100644
>> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
>> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
>> @@ -1258,8 +1258,19 @@ void kthread_use_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
>> #endif
>>
>> + /*
>> + * When a kthread starts operating on an address space, the loop
>> + * in membarrier_{private,global}_expedited() may not observe
>> + * that tsk->mm, and not issue an IPI. Membarrier requires a
>> + * memory barrier after storing to tsk->mm, before accessing
>> + * user-space memory. A full memory barrier for membarrier
>> + * {PRIVATE,GLOBAL}_EXPEDITED is implicitly provided by
>> + * mmdrop().
>> + */
>> if (active_mm != mm)
>> mmdrop(active_mm);
>> + else
>> + smp_mb();
>>
>> to_kthread(tsk)->oldfs = get_fs();
>> set_fs(USER_DS);
>> @@ -1280,6 +1291,14 @@ void kthread_unuse_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> set_fs(to_kthread(tsk)->oldfs);
>>
>> task_lock(tsk);
>> + /*
>> + * When a kthread stops operating on an address space, the loop
>> + * in membarrier_{private,global}_expedited() may not observe
>> + * that tsk->mm, and not issue an IPI. Membarrier requires a
>> + * memory barrier after accessing user-space memory, before
>> + * clearing tsk->mm.
>> + */
>> + smp_mb();
>> sync_mm_rss(mm);
>> local_irq_disable();
>
> Would it make sense to put the smp_mb() inside the IRQ disable region?

I've initially placed it right after task_lock so we could eventually
have a smp_mb__after_non_raw_spinlock or something with a much better naming,
which would allow removing the extra barrier when it is implied by the
spinlock.

I don't see moving the barrier inside the irq off region as having any
significant effect as far as membarrier is concern. Is it something you
need for tlb flush ?

>
>> tsk->mm = NULL;
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
>> index 168479a7d61b..8a294483074d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
>> @@ -100,13 +100,9 @@ static int membarrier_global_expedited(void)
>> MEMBARRIER_STATE_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED))
>> continue;
>>
>> - /*
>> - * Skip the CPU if it runs a kernel thread. The scheduler
>> - * leaves the prior task mm in place as an optimization when
>> - * scheduling a kthread.
>> - */
>> + /* Skip the CPU if it runs the idle thread. */
>> p = rcu_dereference(cpu_rq(cpu)->curr);
>> - if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
>> + if (is_idle_task(p))
>> continue;
>
> Do we want to add a:
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(current->mm);
>
> in play_idle_precise() ?
>
> Because, if I read this right, we rely on the idle thread not having an
> mm.

Yes, that's a good idea.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-04 17:00    [W:0.059 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site