On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:46:34AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Nov 17, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Lai Jiangshan [email protected] 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.
>
> No, that would be unexpected from user-space. Either a system
> call is implemented or not, not "implemented for some parameters".
>
> We also want MEMBARRIER_CMD_QUERY to return -ENOSYS in this case,
> and all other parameter values to also return -ENOSYS (rather than
> -EINVAL).
>
> If a system call that returns successfully on CMD_QUERY or EINVAL,
> user-space may assume it will not have to handle ENOSYS in the
> next calls.
>
>
> >
> > Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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?
>
> This may require that we send an IPI to nohz_full CPUs, which will
> disturb them real-time wise. Any better ideas ?
Restrict the IPIs to CPUs running the process executing the
sys_membarrier() system call. This would mean that CPUs only
are interrupted by their own application's request.
Thanx, Paul
