On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 01:25:07PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 2d95dc3f4644..bab6f4f2809f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3736,6 +3736,8 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
>        */
>       arch_start_context_switch(prev);
>  
> +     membarrier_switch_mm(rq, prev->mm, next->mm);
> +
>       /*
>        * kernel -> kernel   lazy + transfer active
>        *   user -> kernel   lazy + mmgrab() active
> @@ -3752,7 +3754,6 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
>               else
>                       prev->active_mm = NULL;
>       } else {                                        // to user
> -             membarrier_switch_mm(rq, prev->active_mm, next->mm);
>               /*
>                * sys_membarrier() requires an smp_mb() between setting
>                * rq->curr / membarrier_switch_mm() and returning to userspace.

I was thinking... do we need the above, when:

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> index 8bc8b8a888b7..e5246580201b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> @@ -112,13 +112,9 @@ static int membarrier_global_expedited(void)
>                   MEMBARRIER_STATE_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED))
>                       continue;
>  
> -             /*
> -              * Skip the CPU if it runs a kernel thread. The scheduler
> -              * leaves the prior task mm in place as an optimization when
> -              * scheduling a kthread.
> -              */
> +             /* Skip the CPU if it runs the idle thread. */
>               p = rcu_dereference(cpu_rq(cpu)->curr);
> -             if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)

We retain this in the form:

                if ((p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) && !p-mm)
                        continue;

> +             if (is_idle_task(p))
>                       continue;
>  
>               __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);

Specifically, we only care about kthreads when they're between
kthread_use_mm() / kthread_unuse_mm(), and in that case they will have
updated state already.

It's too late in the day to be sure about the memory ordering though;
but if we see !->mm, they'll do/have-done switch_mm() which implies
sufficient barriers().

Hmm?

Reply via email to