Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755162Ab0ASSjZ@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755162Ab0ASSjZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:39:25 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755145Ab0ASSjZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:39:25 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:46957 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754971Ab0ASSjY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:39:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
 barrier (v5)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
       Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
       dipankar@in.ibm.com
In-Reply-To: <20100114193355.GA23436@Krystal>
References: <20100113013757.GA29314@Krystal>
	 <1263400738.4244.242.camel@laptop> <20100113193603.GA27327@Krystal>
	 <1263460096.4244.282.camel@laptop> <20100114162609.GC3487@Krystal>
	 <1263488625.4244.333.camel@laptop> <20100114175449.GA15387@Krystal>
	 <20100114183739.GA18435@Krystal>
	 <1263495132.28171.3861.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20100114193355.GA23436@Krystal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:37:39 +0100
Message-ID: <1263926259.4283.757.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3072
Lines: 75

On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:33 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> It's a case where CPU 1 switches from our mm to another mm:
> 
>        CPU 0 (membarrier)                  CPU 1 (another mm -our mm)
>        <user-space>                        <user-space>
>                                            <buffered access C.S. data>
>                                            urcu read unlock()
>                                              barrier()
>                                              store local gp
>                                            <kernel-space>

OK, so the question is how we end up here, if its though interrupt
preemption I think the interrupt delivery will imply an mb, if its a
blocking syscall, the set_task_state() mb [*] should be there.

Then we also do:

					clear_tsk_need_resched()

which is an atomic bitop (although does not imply a full barrier
per-se).

>                                            rq->curr = next (1)
>        memory access before membarrier
>        <call sys_membarrier()>
>        smp_mb()
>        mm_cpumask includes CPU 1
>        rcu_read_lock()
>        if (cpu_curr(1)->mm != our mm)
>          skip CPU 1     -> here, rq->curr new version is already visible
>        rcu_read_unlock()
>        smp_mb()
>        <return to user-space>
>        memory access after membarrier
>        -> this is where we allow freeing
>           the old structure although the
>           buffered access C.S. data is
>           still in flight.
>                                            User-space access C.S. data (2)
>                                              (buffer flush)
>                                            switch_mm()
>                                              smp_mb()
>                                              clear_mm_cpumask()
>                                              set_mm_cpumask()
>                                              smp_mb() (by load_cr3() on x86)
>                                            switch_to()
>                                              <buffered current = next>
>                                            <switch back to user-space>
>                                              current = next (1) (buffer flush)
>                                            access critical section data (3)
> 
> As we can see, the reordering of (1) and (2) is problematic, as it lets
> the check skip over a CPU that have global side-effects not committed to
> memory yet. 

Right, this one I get, thanks!


So about that [*], Oleg, kernel/signal.c:SYSCALL_DEFINE0(pause) does:

SYSCALL_DEFINE0(pause)
{
        current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
        schedule();
        return -ERESTARTNOHAND;
}

Isn't that ->state assignment buggy? If so, there appear to be quite a
few such sites, which worries me.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/