Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1738975
| From | Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command |
| Date | 2017-09-25 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <utAwG-6f6-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <urz21-2JM-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <uss8b-4hz-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <usxKx-7Bl-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <utfiz-Ql-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <utg4W-1lc-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 02:23:04PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]
> >>
> >> copy_mm() is performed without holding current->sighand->siglock, so
> >> it appears to be racing with concurrent membarrier register cmd.
> >
> > Speak of racing, I think we currently have a problem if we do a
> > register_private_expedited in one thread and do a
> > membarrer_private_expedited in another thread(sharing the same mm), as
> > follow:
> >
> > {t1,t2,t3 sharing the same ->mm}
> > CPU 0 CPU 1 CPU2
> > ==================== =================== ============
> > {in thread t1}
> > membarrier_register_private_expedited():
> > ...
> > WRITE_ONCE(->mm->membarrier_private_expedited, 1);
> > membarrier_arch_register_private_expedited():
> > ...
> > <haven't set the TIF for t3 yet>
> >
> > {in thread t2}
> > membarrier_private_expedited():
> > READ_ONCE(->mm->membarrier_private_expedited); // == 1
> > ...
> > for_each_online_cpu()
> > ...
> > <p is cpu_rq(CPU2)->curr>
> > if (p && p->mm == current->mm) // false
> > <so no ipi sent to CPU2>
> >
> > {about to switch to t3}
> > rq->curr = t3;
> > ....
> > context_switch():
> > ...
> > finish_task_swtich():
> > membarrier_sched_in():
> > <TIF is not set>
> > // no smp_mb() here.
> >
> > , and we will miss the smp_mb() on CPU2, right? And this could even
> > happen if t2 has a membarrier_register_private_expedited() preceding the
> > membarrier_private_expedited().
> >
> > Am I missing something subtle here?
>
> I think the problem sits in this function:
>
> static void membarrier_register_private_expedited(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *p = current;
>
> if (READ_ONCE(p->mm->membarrier_private_expedited))
> return;
> WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->membarrier_private_expedited, 1);
> membarrier_arch_register_private_expedited(p);
> }
>
> I need to change the order between WRITE_ONCE() and invoking
> membarrier_arch_register_private_expedited. If I issue the
> WRITE_ONCE after the arch code (which sets the TIF flags),
> then concurrent membarrier priv exped commands will simply
> return an -EPERM error:
>
> static void membarrier_register_private_expedited(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *p = current;
>
> if (READ_ONCE(p->mm->membarrier_private_expedited))
> return;
> membarrier_arch_register_private_expedited(p);
> WRITE_ONCE(p->mm->membarrier_private_expedited, 1);
> }
>
> Do you agree that this would fix the race you identified ?
>
Yep, that will do the trick ;-)
Regards,
Boqun
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2017-09-20 00:20 +0200
[RFC PATCH 2/2] membarrier: selftest: Test private expedited cmd Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2017-09-20 00:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 05:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 05:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2017-09-22 07:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-22 10:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 11:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 11:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2017-09-22 17:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2017-09-24 15:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2017-09-24 16:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 14:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-25 14:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/2] membarrier: Provide register expedited private command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2017-09-25 14:50 +0200
csiph-web