lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] kvm: optimize out smp_mb using srcu_read_unlock
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:56:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:26:05AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Paul, could you review this patch please?
> > > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt says that unlock has a weaker
> > > > uni-directional barrier, but in practice srcu_read_unlock calls
> > > > smp_mb().
> > > >
> > > > Is it OK to rely on this? If not, can I add
> > > > smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock (making it an empty macro for now)
> > > > so we can avoid an actual extra smp_mb()?
> > >
> > > Please use smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock(). After all, it was not
> > > that long ago that srcu_read_unlock() contained no memory barriers,
> > > and perhaps some day it won't need to once again.
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Something like this will be enough?
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > index c114614..9b058ee 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > @@ -237,4 +237,18 @@ static inline void srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
> > __srcu_read_unlock(sp, idx);
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock - ensure full ordering after srcu_read_unlock
> > + *
> > + * Converts the preceding srcu_read_unlock into a two-way memory barrier.
> > + *
> > + * Call this after srcu_read_unlock, to guarantee that all memory operations
> > + * that occur after smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock will appear to happen after
> > + * the preceding srcu_read_unlock.
> > + */
> > +static inline void smp_mb__after_srcu_read_unlock(void)
> > +{
> > + /* __srcu_read_unlock has smp_mb() internally so nothing to do here. */
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif
>
> Yep, that should do it!
>
> Thanx, Paul

BTW I'm wondering about the smb_mb within srcu_read_lock.
If we kept the index in the same memory with the buffer we
dereference, could we get rid of it and use a dependency barrier
instead? It does appear prominently in the profiles.
Thoughts?


--
MST


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-31 16:01    [W:0.089 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site