Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 14:07:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@posk.io>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Peter Oskolkov <posk@google.com>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Chris Kennelly <ckennelly@google.com>
Message-ID: <1689650939.2607.1596823679392.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFTs51VabphnoXOxLgUqDL288zfLpEugC-H5jxg=JGhTHB7QDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200806000859.160882-1-posk@google.com> <20200806134828.GA165568@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAFTs51Ufyds5mypiysL=2ZwtyMk9hjLm-9tJbYz=xciY1f2=5g@mail.gmail.com> <1668913120.1621.1596735425601.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <CAFTs51VabphnoXOxLgUqDL288zfLpEugC-H5jxg=JGhTHB7QDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] membarrier: add
 MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_RESTART_RSEQ_ON_CPU
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: membarrier: add MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_RESTART_RSEQ_ON_CPU
Thread-Index: Xx96NTYjLPZR8gb9GR8pxC4FdSAa7w==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

----- On Aug 7, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Peter Oskolkov posk@posk.io wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
[...]
>> Also, should this belong to the membarrier or the rseq system call ? It just
>> looks like the membarrier happens to implement very similar things for barriers,
>> but arguably this is really about rseq. I wonder if we should expose this
>> through
>> rseq instead, even if we end up using membarrier code.
> 
> Yes, this is more about rseq; on the other hand, the high-level API/behavior
> looks closer to that membarrier, and a lot of code will be shared.
> 
> As you are the maintainer for both rseq and membarrier, this is for
> you to decide, I guess... :)

Considering that membarrier has been made extensible with the cmd
argument, and on the other hand rseq can be extended with "flags", but is
currently only about registration/unregistration, I think adding a command
to membarrier is indeed a natural approach.

I am not very fond on re-purposing the membarrier flags parameter into a
cpu number though. Maybe we should tweak the membarrier system call so it
can expect 3 arguments instead ?

  int membarrier(int cmd, int flags, int cpu);

where cpu is only used for specific commands.

One thing I find weird about Peter's patch is that it adds a
MEMBERRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ without a corresponding
MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ. Considering that
the SYNC_CORE variant already has its own register command, I
find it weird that the RSEQ counterpart does not have one.

Also, do we want to allow a RSEQ | SYNC_CORE private expedited
membarrier as well ? If that is the case, then we might want to
investigate exposing RSEQ-membarrier as a new membarrier flag
rather than as a stand-alone command.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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