From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: joel@joelfernandes.org
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Uladzislau Rezki \(Sony\)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
fweisbec@gmail.com, neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/6] rcu/segcblist: Add additional comments to explain smp_mb()
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:24:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201017202411.GC842001@rowland.harvard.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201017031941.GD4015033@google.com>
[I sent this reply earlier, but since it hasn't shown up in the mailing
list archives, I may have forgotten to include the proper CC's. At the
risk of repeating myself, here it is again.]
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:19:41PM -0400, joel@joelfernandes.org wrote:
> So I made a litmus test to show that smp_mb() is needed also after the update
> to length. Basically, otherwise it is possible the callback will see garbage
> that the module cleanup/unload did.
>
> C rcubarrier+ctrldep
>
> (*
> * Result: Never
> *
> * This litmus test shows that rcu_barrier (P1) prematurely
> * returning by reading len 0 can cause issues if P0 does
> * NOT have a smb_mb() after WRITE_ONCE(len, 1).
> * mod_data == 2 means module was unloaded (so data is garbage).
> *)
>
> { int len = 0; int enq = 0; }
>
> P0(int *len, int *mod_data, int *enq)
> {
> int r0;
>
> WRITE_ONCE(*len, 1);
> smp_mb(); /* Needed! */
> WRITE_ONCE(*enq, 1);
>
> r0 = READ_ONCE(*mod_data);
> }
>
> P1(int *len, int *mod_data, int *enq)
> {
> int r0;
> int r1;
>
> r1 = READ_ONCE(*enq);
>
> // barrier Just for test purpose ("exists" clause) to force the..
> // ..rcu_barrier() to see enq before len
> smp_mb();
> r0 = READ_ONCE(*len);
>
> // implicit memory barrier due to conditional */
> if (r0 == 0)
> WRITE_ONCE(*mod_data, 2);
> }
>
> // Did P0 read garbage?
> exists (0:r0=2 /\ 1:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=1)
Is this exists clause really what you meant? Not only can it not be
satisfied, it couldn't even be satisfied if you left out the 0:r0=2
part. And smp_mb() is stronger than neessary to enforce this.
However, some memory barrier is needed. If the smp_mb() in P1 were
omitted then P1 would be free to reorder its reads, and the exists
clause could be satisfied as follows:
P0 P1
------------------------------------------
Read len = 0
Write len = 1
smp_mb();
Write enq = 1
Read enq = 1
Write mod_data = 2
Read mod_data = 2
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-17 20:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-15 0:22 [PATCH v7 0/6] Add support for length of each segment in the segcblist Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-15 0:22 ` [PATCH v7 1/6] rcu/tree: Make rcu_do_batch count how many callbacks were executed Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-15 0:22 ` [PATCH v7 2/6] rcu/segcblist: Add counters to segcblist datastructure Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-15 12:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-17 1:31 ` joel
2020-10-21 15:33 ` joel
2020-10-21 21:53 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-21 22:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-10-18 8:23 ` [rcu/segcblist] e08055898f: WARNING:at_kernel/rcu/srcutree.c:#cleanup_srcu_struct kernel test robot
2020-10-21 14:40 ` joel
2020-10-15 0:22 ` [PATCH v7 3/6] rcu/trace: Add tracing for how segcb list changes Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-15 0:22 ` [PATCH v7 4/6] rcu/segcblist: Remove useless rcupdate.h include Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-15 0:23 ` [PATCH v7 5/6] rcu/tree: Remove redundant smp_mb() in rcu_do_batch Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-15 0:23 ` [PATCH v7 6/6] rcu/segcblist: Add additional comments to explain smp_mb() Joel Fernandes (Google)
2020-10-15 13:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-17 1:27 ` joel
2020-10-17 3:19 ` joel
2020-10-17 13:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-18 0:35 ` joel
2020-10-19 12:37 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-21 18:57 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-10-21 21:16 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-17 20:24 ` Alan Stern [this message]
2020-10-18 20:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-10-18 21:15 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-17 14:31 ` Alan Stern
2020-10-18 20:16 ` Joel Fernandes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201017202411.GC842001@rowland.harvard.edu \
--to=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome