On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:51:26PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Userspace applications should be allowed to expect the membarrier system
> > call with MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED command to issue memory barriers on
> > nohz_full CPUs, but synchronize_sched() does not take those into
> > account.
> >
> > Given that we do not want unrelated processes to be able to affect
> > real-time sensitive nohz_full CPUs, simply return ENOSYS when membarrier
> > is invoked on a kernel with enabled nohz_full CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
> > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
> > CC: Josh Triplett <[email protected]>
> > CC: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
> > CC: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> > CC: <[email protected]> [3.10+]
> > ---
> > kernel/membarrier.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/membarrier.c b/kernel/membarrier.c
> > index 536c727..9f9284f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/membarrier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/membarrier.c
> > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/syscalls.h>
> > #include <linux/membarrier.h>
> > +#include <linux/tick.h>
> >
> > /*
> > * Bitmask made from a "or" of all commands within enum membarrier_cmd,
> > @@ -51,6 +52,9 @@
> > */
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE2(membarrier, int, cmd, int, flags)
> > {
> > + /* MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED is not compatible with nohz_full. */
> > + if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
> > + return -ENOSYS;
>
> I guess this code needs to be moved down into the branch of
> "case MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED" to match its comment.
>
> Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
Added, thank you!
> But I'm afraid, in the future, tick_nohz_full will become a default y
> feature. thus it makes sys_membarrier() always disabled. we might
> need a new MEMBARRIER_CMD_XXX to handle it?
Makes a lot of sense to me!
Thanx, Paul
