Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memorybarrier (v5)

From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Wed Jan 13 2010 - 14:36:17 EST

* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 20:37 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, tmpmask) {
> > + spin_lock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > + mm = cpu_curr(cpu)->mm;
> > + spin_unlock_irq(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> > + if (current->mm != mm)
> > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);
> > + }
> Why not:
> rcu_read_lock();
> if (current->mm != cpu_curr(cpu)->mm)
> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, tmpmask);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> the RCU read lock ensures the task_struct obtained remains valid, and it
> avoids taking the rq->lock.

If we go for a simple rcu_read_lock, I think that we need a smp_mb()
after switch_to() updates the current task on the remote CPU, before it
returns to user-space. Do we have this guarantee for all architectures ?

So what I'm looking for, overall, is:

clear mm_cpumask
set mm_cpumask
update current task

If we have that, then the rcu_read_lock should work.

What the rq lock currently gives us is the guarantee that if the current
thread changes on a remote CPU while we are not holding this lock, then
a full scheduler execution is performed, which implies a memory barrier
if we change the current thread (it does, right ?).



Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at