Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: membarrier: cover kthread_use_mm (v3)

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Oct 7, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 11:39:30AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> Moving the membarrier_switch_mm to cover kthread cases was to ensure (2), but if
>> we
>> add a p->mm NULL check in the global expedited iteration, I think we would be OK
>> leaving the stale runqueue's membarrier state while in lazy tlb state.
>> 
>> As far as (1) is concerned, I think your idea would work, because as you say we
>> will
>> have the proper barriers in kthread use/unuse mm.
>> 
>> I just wonder whether having this stale membarrier state for lazy tlb is
>> warranted
>> performance-wise, as it adds complexity: the rq membarrier state will therefore
>> not be
>> relevant when we are in lazy tlb mode.
>> 
>> Thoughts ?
> 
> Well, the way I got here was that I considered the membarrier state
> update tied to switch_mm(), and in that regard my proposal is a
> simplification.

Sounds good.

So for the loop check, do we need it to be:

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

Or can it simply become:

                if (!p->mm)
                        continue;

Because AFAIU only PF_KTHREAD can have NULL p->mm (?)

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com