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 12:11:57 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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>
Message-ID: <1870892799.11183.1602087117694.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <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> <20201007160820.GK2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm (v3)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm (v3)
Thread-Index: 2DSJ/AySq6n0r6bebLjBXfA3B0Au8Q==
Precedence: bulk

----- On Oct 7, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:

> 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.

Sounds good.

So for the loop check, do we need it to be:

                if ((p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && !p->mm)
                        continue;

Or can it simply become:

                if (!p->mm)
                        continue;

Because AFAIU only PF_KTHREAD can have NULL p->mm (?)

Thanks,

Mathieu

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