On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Provide a new command allowing processes to register their intent to use
> the private expedited command.
>
> This allows PowerPC to skip the full memory barrier in switch_mm(), and
> only issue the barrier when scheduling into a task belonging to a
> process that has registered to use expedited private.
>
> Processes are now required to register before using
> MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED, otherwise that command returns EPERM.
>
> [ Runtime testing on the PowerPC architecture would be welcome. ]
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/membarrier.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> +#ifndef _ASM_POWERPC_MEMBARRIER_H
> +#define _ASM_POWERPC_MEMBARRIER_H
> +
> +static inline void membarrier_arch_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev,
> + struct task_struct *next)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Only need the full barrier when switching between processes.
> + */
> + if (likely(!test_thread_flag(TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED)
> + || prev->mm == next->mm))
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * The membarrier system call requires a full memory barrier
> + * after storing to rq->curr, before going back to user-space.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> +}
> +static inline void membarrier_arch_fork(struct task_struct *t,
> + unsigned long clone_flags)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Coherence of TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED against thread
> + * fork is protected by siglock. membarrier_arch_fork is called
> + * with siglock held.
> + */
> + if (t->mm->membarrier_private_expedited)
> + set_ti_thread_flag(t, TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED);
> +}
Why have two separate bitflags for the same thing? Can't you just use
the mm->membarrier_private_expedited flag everywhere and forget about
TIF_MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED?
Alan Stern
