lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Synchronize task state & waiter->task of readers
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:55:14PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * To avoid missed wakeup of reader, we need to make sure
> > > + * that task state and waiter->task are properly synchronized.
> > > + *
> > > + * wakeup sleep
> > > + * ------ -----
> > > + * __rwsem_mark_wake: rwsem_down_read_failed*:
> > > + * [S] waiter->task [S] set_current_state(state)
> > > + * MB MB
> > > + * try_to_wake_up:
> > > + * [L] state [L] waiter->task
> > > + *
> > > + * For the wakeup path, the original lock release-acquire pair
> > > + * does not provide enough guarantee of proper synchronization.
> > > + */
> > > + smp_mb();
> > > +
> > > adjustment = woken * RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS - adjustment;
> > > if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
> > > /* hit end of list above */
> >

> try_to_wake_up() does:
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> smp_mb__after_spinlock();
> if (!(p->state & state))
>
> My understanding is that this smp_mb__after_spinlock() provides us with
> the guarantee you described above. The smp_mb__after_spinlock() should
> represent a 'cheaper way' to provide such a guarantee.

Right, I don't see what problem is being fixed here either. The scenario
in the comment is already closed by the smp_mb__after_spinlock() you
mention.

And it is fine to rely on that, we do in other places.

> If this understanding is correct, the remaining question would be about
> whether you want to rely on (and document) the smp_mb__after_spinlock()
> in the callsite in question (the comment in wake_up_q()
>
> /*
> * wake_up_process() implies a wmb() to pair with the queueing
> * in wake_q_add() so as not to miss wakeups.
> */
>

So that comment is about the ordering required for wake_q_add() vs
wake_up_q(). But yes, wmb is a little confusing. I suppose I was
thinking of the NULL store vs the wakeup (store), but that doesn't
really make much sense.

And wake_up_process() being a mb means it also implies a wmb; if such is
all that is required for the scenario at hand.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-24 11:15    [W:0.092 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site