From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: fix exit_mm vs membarrier (v2)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 23:23:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200816152330.GA87259@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200814164358.4783-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Hi Mathieu,
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 12:43:56PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> exit_mm should issue memory barriers after user-space memory accesses,
> before clearing current->mm, to order user-space memory accesses
> performed prior to exit_mm before clearing tsk->mm, which has the
> effect of skipping the membarrier private expedited IPIs.
>
> The membarrier system call can be issued concurrently with do_exit
> if we have thread groups created with CLONE_VM but not CLONE_THREAD.
>
> Here is the scenario I have in mind:
>
> Two thread groups are created, A and B. Thread group B is created by
> issuing clone from group A with flag CLONE_VM set, but not CLONE_THREAD.
> Let's assume we have a single thread within each thread group (Thread A
> and Thread B).
>
> The AFAIU we can have:
>
> Userspace variables:
>
> int x = 0, y = 0;
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
> Thread A Thread B
> (in thread group A) (in thread group B)
>
> x = 1
> barrier()
> y = 1
> exit()
> exit_mm()
> current->mm = NULL;
> r1 = load y
> membarrier()
> skips CPU 0 (no IPI) because its current mm is NULL
> r2 = load x
> BUG_ON(r1 == 1 && r2 == 0)
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Use smp_mb__after_spinlock rather than smp_mb.
> - Document race scenario in commit message.
> ---
> kernel/exit.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index 733e80f334e7..fe64e6e28dd5 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -475,6 +475,14 @@ static void exit_mm(void)
> BUG_ON(mm != current->active_mm);
> /* more a memory barrier than a real lock */
> task_lock(current);
> + /*
> + * When a thread stops operating on an address space, the loop
> + * in membarrier_{private,global}_expedited() may not observe
Is it accurate to say that the correctness of
membarrier_global_expedited() relies on the observation of ->mm? Because
IIUC membarrier_global_expedited() loop doesn't check ->mm.
Regards,
Boqun
> + * that tsk->mm, and not issue an IPI. Membarrier requires a
> + * memory barrier after accessing user-space memory, before
> + * clearing tsk->mm.
> + */
> + smp_mb__after_spinlock();
> current->mm = NULL;
> mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> enter_lazy_tlb(mm, current);
> --
> 2.11.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-16 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20200814164358.4783-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
2020-08-14 16:43 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-08-16 15:23 ` Boqun Feng [this message]
2020-09-24 15:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200816152330.GA87259@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net \
--to=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox