----- On Oct 7, 2020, at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 01:25:06PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c >> index 733e80f334e7..0767a2dbf245 100644 >> --- a/kernel/exit.c >> +++ b/kernel/exit.c >> @@ -475,7 +475,19 @@ 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_expedited() may not observe that >> + * tsk->mm, and the loop in membarrier_global_expedited() may >> + * not observe a MEMBARRIER_STATE_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED >> + * rq->membarrier_state, so those would not issue an IPI. >> + * Membarrier requires a memory barrier after accessing >> + * user-space memory, before clearing tsk->mm or the >> + * rq->membarrier_state. >> + */ >> + smp_mb__after_spinlock(); >> current->mm = NULL; >> + membarrier_update_current_mm(NULL); >> mmap_read_unlock(mm); >> enter_lazy_tlb(mm, current); >> task_unlock(current); > > This site seems to be lacking in IRQ disabling. As proposed it will > explode on RT. Right, so irq off is needed for accessing this_rq()'s fields safely, correct ? I'll fold that fix in my patch for the next round, thanks! Mathieu > > Something like so to match kthread_unuse_mm(). > > --- a/kernel/exit.c > +++ b/kernel/exit.c > @@ -486,11 +486,13 @@ static void exit_mm(void) > * rq->membarrier_state. > */ > smp_mb__after_spinlock(); > + local_irq_disable() > current->mm = NULL; > membarrier_update_current_mm(NULL); > - mmap_read_unlock(mm); > enter_lazy_tlb(mm, current); > + local_irq_enable(); > task_unlock(current); > + mmap_read_unlock(mm); > mm_update_next_owner(mm); > mmput(mm); > if (test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMDIE)) -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
