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:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:08:20 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm (v3)
Message-ID: <20201007160820.GK2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200924172508.8724-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20200924172508.8724-3-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20201007150704.GH2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1286784649.11153.1602085170586.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1286784649.11153.1602085170586.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 11:39:30AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Moving the membarrier_switch_mm to cover kthread cases was to ensure (2), but if we
> add a p->mm NULL check in the global expedited iteration, I think we would be OK
> leaving the stale runqueue's membarrier state while in lazy tlb state.
> 
> As far as (1) is concerned, I think your idea would work, because as you say we will
> have the proper barriers in kthread use/unuse mm.
> 
> I just wonder whether having this stale membarrier state for lazy tlb is warranted
> performance-wise, as it adds complexity: the rq membarrier state will therefore not be
> relevant when we are in lazy tlb mode.
> 
> Thoughts ?

Well, the way I got here was that I considered the membarrier state
update tied to switch_mm(), and in that regard my proposal is a
simplification.