lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH memory-model 2/4] tools/memory-model: Add example for heuristic lockless reads
From
Date
Hi Alan,

On 7/23/21 4:08 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 02:10:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> This commit adds example code for heuristic lockless reads, based loosely
>> on the sem_lock() and sem_unlock() functions.
>>
>> Reported-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
>> [ paulmck: Update per Manfred Spraul and Hillf Danton feedback. ]
>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> .../Documentation/access-marking.txt | 94 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
>> index 58bff26198767..be7d507997cf8 100644
>> --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
>> +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
>> @@ -319,6 +319,100 @@ of the ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER() is to allow KCSAN to check for a buggy
>> concurrent lockless write.
>>
>>
>> +Lock-Protected Writes With Heuristic Lockless Reads
>> +---------------------------------------------------
>> +
>> +For another example, suppose that the code can normally make use of
>> +a per-data-structure lock, but there are times when a global lock
>> +is required. These times are indicated via a global flag. The code
>> +might look as follows, and is based loosely on nf_conntrack_lock(),
>> +nf_conntrack_all_lock(), and nf_conntrack_all_unlock():
>> +
>> + bool global_flag;
>> + DEFINE_SPINLOCK(global_lock);
>> + struct foo {
>> + spinlock_t f_lock;
>> + int f_data;
>> + };
>> +
>> + /* All foo structures are in the following array. */
>> + int nfoo;
>> + struct foo *foo_array;
>> +
>> + void do_something_locked(struct foo *fp)
>> + {
>> + bool gf = true;
>> +
>> + /* IMPORTANT: Heuristic plus spin_lock()! */
>> + if (!data_race(global_flag)) {
>> + spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> + if (!smp_load_acquire(&global_flag)) {
>> + do_something(fp);
>> + spin_unlock(&fp->f_lock);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock(&fp->f_lock);
>> + }
>> + spin_lock(&global_lock);
>> + /* Lock held, thus global flag cannot change. */
>> + if (!global_flag) {
> How can global_flag ever be true at this point? The only line of code
> that sets it is in begin_global() below, it only runs while global_lock
> is held, and global_flag is set back to false before the lock is
> released.

It can't be true. The code is a simplified version of the algorithm in
ipc/sem.c.

For the ipc/sem.c, global_flag can remain true even after dropping
global_lock.

When transferring the approach to nf_conntrack_core, I didn't notice
that nf_conntrack doesn't need a persistent global_flag.

Thus the recheck after spin_lock(&global_lock) is not needed.


>> + spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&global_lock);
>> + gf = false;
>> + }
>> + do_something(fp);
>> + if (fg)
> Should be gf, not fg.
>
>> + spin_unlock(&global_lock);
>> + else
>> + spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> + void begin_global(void)
>> + {
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&global_lock);
>> + WRITE_ONCE(global_flag, true);
> Why does this need to be WRITE_ONCE? It still races with the first read
> of global_flag above.
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < nfoo; i++) {
>> + /* Wait for pre-existing local locks. */
>> + spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&fp->f_lock);
> Why not acquire all the locks here and release all of them in
> end_global()? Then global_flag wouldn't need acquire-release
> sychronization.

From my understanding:
spin_lock contains preempt_count_add, thus you can't acquire more than
255 spinlocks (actually 245, the warning limit is 10 below 255)

>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + void end_global(void)
>> + {
>> + smp_store_release(&global_flag, false);
>> + /* Pre-existing global lock acquisitions will recheck. */
> What does that comment mean? How can there be any pre-existing global
> lock acquisitions when we hold the lock right now?

>> + spin_unlock(&global_lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> +All code paths leading from the do_something_locked() function's first
>> +read from global_flag acquire a lock, so endless load fusing cannot
>> +happen.
>> +
>> +If the value read from global_flag is true, then global_flag is rechecked
>> +while holding global_lock, which prevents global_flag from changing.
>> +If this recheck finds that global_flag is now false, the acquisition
> Again, how can't global_flag be false now?
>
> Did you originally have in mind some sort of scheme in which
> begin_global() would release global_lock before returning and
> end_global() would acquire global_lock before clearing global_flag? But
> I don't see how that could work without changes to do_something_locked().
>
>> +of ->f_lock prior to the release of global_lock will result in any subsequent
>> +begin_global() invocation waiting to acquire ->f_lock.
>> +
>> +On the other hand, if the value read from global_flag is false, then
>> +global_flag, then rechecking under ->f_lock combined with synchronization
> ---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Typo?
>
>> +with begin_global() guarantees than any erroneous read will cause the
>> +do_something_locked() function's first do_something() invocation to happen
>> +before begin_global() returns. The combination of the smp_load_acquire()
>> +in do_something_locked() and the smp_store_release() in end_global()
>> +guarantees that either the do_something_locked() function's first
>> +do_something() invocation happens after the call to end_global() or that
>> +do_something_locked() acquires global_lock() and rechecks under the lock.
> This last sentence also makes no sense unless you imagine dropping
> global_lock between begin_global() and end_global().

ipc/sem.c does that and needs that, nf_conntrack doesn't use this.


--

    Manfred

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-23 08:54    [W:0.097 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site