Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memorybarrier

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:39 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > sys_membarrier() should "insert" mb() on behalf of B "instead"
> > of barrier(), right? But, if we send IPI, B enters kernel mode
> > and returns to user-mode. Should this imply mb() in any case?
> 
> Hello, Oleg,
> 
> The issue is with some suggested optimizations that would avoid sending
> the IPI to CPUs that are not running threads in the same process as the
> thread executing the sys_membarrier().  Some forms of these optimizations
> sample ->mm without locking, and the question is whether this is safe.

Note, we are not suggesting optimizations. It has nothing to do with
performance of the syscall. We just can't allow one process to be DoSing
another process on another cpu by it sending out millions of IPIs.
Mathieu already showed that you could cause a 2x slowdown to the
unrelated tasks.

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/