Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1418564 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-09 20:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-10 15:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 7 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 20:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-10 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-10 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-10 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-10 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-10 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-10 15:00 +0200
| From | Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-09 20:20 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed |
| Message-ID | <rIcIF-1zJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
There is no need to use the barrier if there is no dereference/
memory access; move it where needed (currently, affecting only
Alpha). While touching this, also make the reads _ONCE().
Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
---
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index b7a525ab2083..b1364acd683e 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1520,10 +1520,11 @@ static unsigned long get_trampoline_vaddr(void)
struct xol_area *area;
unsigned long trampoline_vaddr = -1;
- area = current->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area;
- smp_read_barrier_depends();
- if (area)
- trampoline_vaddr = area->vaddr;
+ area = READ_ONCE(current->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area);
+ if (area) {
+ smp_read_barrier_depends();
+ trampoline_vaddr = READ_ONCE(area->vaddr);
+ }
return trampoline_vaddr;
}
--
1.9.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 09:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed |
| Message-ID | <rIoJP-1vU-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1418564 |
On 06/09, Andrea Parri wrote:
>
> There is no need to use the barrier if there is no dereference/
> memory access; move it where needed (currently, affecting only
> Alpha).
OK, although area == NULL is unlikely case,
> While touching this, also make the reads _ONCE().
Why? both xol_area/vaddr can't change.
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index b7a525ab2083..b1364acd683e 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1520,10 +1520,11 @@ static unsigned long get_trampoline_vaddr(void)
> struct xol_area *area;
> unsigned long trampoline_vaddr = -1;
>
> - area = current->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area;
> - smp_read_barrier_depends();
> - if (area)
> - trampoline_vaddr = area->vaddr;
> + area = READ_ONCE(current->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area);
> + if (area) {
> + smp_read_barrier_depends();
> + trampoline_vaddr = READ_ONCE(area->vaddr);
> + }
>
> return trampoline_vaddr;
> }
> --
> 1.9.1
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 14:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed |
| Message-ID | <rItJx-4w2-45@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1419078 |
On 06/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/09, Andrea Parri wrote:
> >
> > There is no need to use the barrier if there is no dereference/
> > memory access; move it where needed (currently, affecting only
> > Alpha).
>
> OK, although area == NULL is unlikely case,
>
> > While touching this, also make the reads _ONCE().
>
> Why? both xol_area/vaddr can't change.
and perhaps it would be better to eliminate this smp_read_barrier_depends()
altogether, we have a lot of helpers. I mean,
static unsigned long get_trampoline_vaddr(void)
{
struct xol_area *area;
area = lockless_dereference(current->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area);
if (area)
return area->vaddr;
return -1;
}
looks a bit more simple/clean. Note also another smp_read_barrier_depends()
in get_xol_area() which can be changed the same way.
What do you think?
Oleg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 15:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed |
| Message-ID | <rIume-4YI-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1419338 |
On 06/10, Andrea Parri wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/09, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no need to use the barrier if there is no dereference/
> > > > memory access; move it where needed (currently, affecting only
> > > > Alpha).
> > >
> > > OK, although area == NULL is unlikely case,
> > >
> > > > While touching this, also make the reads _ONCE().
> > >
> > > Why? both xol_area/vaddr can't change.
> >
> > and perhaps it would be better to eliminate this smp_read_barrier_depends()
> > altogether, we have a lot of helpers. I mean,
> >
> > static unsigned long get_trampoline_vaddr(void)
> > {
> > struct xol_area *area;
> >
> > area =
> > lockless_dereference(current->mm->uprobes_state.xol_area);
> > if (area)
> > return area->vaddr;
> > return -1;
> > }
> >
> > looks a bit more simple/clean. Note also another smp_read_barrier_depends()
> > in get_xol_area() which can be changed the same way.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> More simply/clean, as you said, maybe; one advantage of keeping
> the "raw" smp_read_barrier_depends() in get_trampoline_vaddr() is
> that we can avoid it when area is NULL;
Do you really think it makes sense to optimize out read_barrier_depends here?
It can only be NULL in handle_swbp(), and in this case we are going to do a
lot of work, and in particular install this xol vma,
> a similar solution is adopt-
> ed in kernel/task_work.c:task_work_cancel().
Heh ;) this code was written before we had lockless_dereference(). And I do
remember I thought that we need such a helper when read_barrier_depends()
was added.
Oleg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed |
| Message-ID | <rIvUZ-5O9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1419368 |
On 06/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 06/10, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > More simply/clean, as you said, maybe; one advantage of keeping > > the "raw" smp_read_barrier_depends() in get_trampoline_vaddr() is > > that we can avoid it when area is NULL; > > Do you really think it makes sense to optimize out read_barrier_depends here? > > It can only be NULL in handle_swbp(), and in this case we are going to do a > lot of work, and in particular install this xol vma, Not to mention that alpha doesn't support uprobes, so this all is currently cosmetic. > > a similar solution is adopt- > > ed in kernel/task_work.c:task_work_cancel(). > > Heh ;) this code was written before we had lockless_dereference(). And I do > remember I thought that we need such a helper when read_barrier_depends() > was added. Plus this code still use ACCESS_ONCE for the same reason. I'll send a simple patch, it should not conflict with "Update spin_unlock_wait users" from Peter. Oleg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 21:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed |
| Message-ID | <rIArE-AY-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1419491 |
On 06/10, Andrea Parri wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 06/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > On 06/10, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > > > > > More simply/clean, as you said, maybe; one advantage of keeping > > > > the "raw" smp_read_barrier_depends() in get_trampoline_vaddr() is > > > > that we can avoid it when area is NULL; > > > > > > Do you really think it makes sense to optimize out read_barrier_depends > > here? > > > > > > It can only be NULL in handle_swbp(), and in this case we are going to > > do a > > > lot of work, and in particular install this xol vma, > > > > Not to mention that alpha doesn't support uprobes, so this all is currently > > cosmetic. > > > > Do you mean a "cosmetic" improvement over the current version? ;-) Yes, if you mean "turn smp_read_barrier_depends into lockless_dereference" ;) So I will be happy to ack this patch if you make it. But "optimize out smp_read_barrier_depends if NULL" imho makes no sense. And, speaking of get_trampoline_vaddr() in particular, it is a bit ugly anyway. prepare_uretprobe() can not hit area == NULL and doesn't need a barrier, while handle_swbp() actually wants is_trampoline(bp_vaddr). Not that I really think this needs a cleanup, at least until we change this code to use multiple trampolines (say, for different stacks). Oleg.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 15:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] events/uprobes: move smp_read_barrier_depends() where needed |
| Message-ID | <rIucz-4Ga-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1419078 |
On 06/10, Andrea Parri wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 06/09, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > > > There is no need to use the barrier if there is no dereference/ > > > memory access; move it where needed (currently, affecting only > > > Alpha). > > > > OK, although area == NULL is unlikely case, > > > > > While touching this, also make the reads _ONCE(). > > > > Why? both xol_area/vaddr can't change. > > > > This is to ensure current (and future) compiler transformations > won't optimize out or reorder the reads (do not ask me how ..., > IAC the volatile casts will prevent this to happen). > > AFAICT, xol_area can be "== NULL" and "!= NULL" ... Yes, but it can't change if it is not NULL. So we do not care if gcc reads xol_area/vaddr twice or reorderes this with other LOADs. Oleg.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web