From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9C0C43144 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBB426372 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:38:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9BBB426372 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934945AbeFZAh5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:37:57 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:37130 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934562AbeFZAdR (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:17 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5Q0Sf9L048047 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:16 -0400 Received: from e14.ny.us.ibm.com (e14.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.204]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ju96r3fae-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:16 -0400 Received: from localhost by e14.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:15 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.28) by e14.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.201) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:11 -0400 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w5Q0XAx514221688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:33:10 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329A1B2064; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFA6B2068; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.159]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:33:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2870A16CA0A1; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:35:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, Andrea Parri , "Paul E . McKenney" , Jonathan Corbet Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/27] doc: Update synchronize_rcu() definition in whatisRCU.txt Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:35:07 -0700 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20180626003448.GA26209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20180626003448.GA26209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18062600-0052-0000-0000-000003040980 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009255; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000266; SDB=6.01052336; UDB=6.00539469; IPR=6.00830262; MB=3.00021856; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-06-26 00:33:15 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18062600-0053-0000-0000-00005D23DD90 Message-Id: <20180626003513.27812-21-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-06-25_11:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806260005 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Andrea Parri The synchronize_rcu() definition based on RW-locks in whatisRCU.txt does not meet the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" in Requirements.html; for example, the following SB-like test: P0: P1: WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(y, 1); synchronize_rcu(); smp_mb(); r0 = READ_ONCE(y); r1 = READ_ONCE(x); should not be allowed to reach the state "r0 = 0 AND r1 = 0", but the current write_lock()+write_unlock() definition can not ensure this. This commit therefore inserts an smp_mb__after_spinlock() in order to cause this synchronize_rcu() implementation to provide this memory-barrier guarantee. Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Josh Triplett Cc: Steven Rostedt Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Lai Jiangshan Cc: Jonathan Corbet Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt | 16 ++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt index 65eb856526b7..94288f1b8759 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt @@ -588,6 +588,7 @@ It is extremely simple: void synchronize_rcu(void) { write_lock(&rcu_gp_mutex); + smp_mb__after_spinlock(); write_unlock(&rcu_gp_mutex); } @@ -609,12 +610,15 @@ don't forget about them when submitting patches making use of RCU!] The rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() primitive read-acquire and release a global reader-writer lock. The synchronize_rcu() -primitive write-acquires this same lock, then immediately releases -it. This means that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side -critical sections that were in progress before synchronize_rcu() was -called are guaranteed to have completed -- there is no way that -synchronize_rcu() would have been able to write-acquire the lock -otherwise. +primitive write-acquires this same lock, then releases it. This means +that once synchronize_rcu() exits, all RCU read-side critical sections +that were in progress before synchronize_rcu() was called are guaranteed +to have completed -- there is no way that synchronize_rcu() would have +been able to write-acquire the lock otherwise. The smp_mb__after_spinlock() +promotes synchronize_rcu() to a full memory barrier in compliance with +the "Memory-Barrier Guarantees" listed in: + + Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html. It is possible to nest rcu_read_lock(), since reader-writer locks may be recursively acquired. Note also that rcu_read_lock() is immune -- 2.17.1