lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/2] srcu: Remove pre-flip memory barrier
Date


> On Dec 20, 2022, at 10:43 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>
> On 2022-12-20 19:58, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 01:49:57AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 07:15:00PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 5:45 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> Agreed about (1).
>>>>
>>>>> _ In (2), E pairs with the address-dependency between idx and lock_count.
>>>>
>>>> But that is not the only reason. If that was the only reason for (2),
>>>> then there is an smp_mb() just before the next-scan post-flip before
>>>> the lock counts are read.
>>>
>>> The post-flip barrier makes sure the new idx is visible on the next READER's
>>> turn, but it doesn't protect against the fact that "READ idx then WRITE lock[idx]"
>>> may appear unordered from the update side POV if there is no barrier between the
>>> scan and the flip.
>>>
>>> If you remove the smp_mb() from the litmus test I sent, things explode.
>> Or rather, look at it the other way, if there is no barrier between the lock
>> scan and the index flip (E), then the index flip can appear to be written before the
>> lock is read. Which means you may start activating the index before you finish
>> reading it (at least it appears that way from the readers pont of view).
>
> Considering that you can have pre-existing readers from arbitrary index appearing anywhere in the grace period (because a reader can fetch the
> index and be preempted for an arbitrary amount of time before incrementing the lock count), the grace period algorithm needs to deal with the fact that a newcoming reader can appear in a given index either before or after the flip.
>
> I don't see how flipping the index before or after loading the unlock/lock values would break anything (except for unlikely counter overflow situations as previously discussed).

If you say unlikely, that means it can happen some times which is bad enough ;-). Maybe you mean impossible. I would not settle for anything less than keeping the memory barrier around if it helps unlikely cases, but only D does help for the theoretical wrapping/overflow issue. E is broken and does not even help the theoretical issue IMO. And both D and E do not affect correctness IMO.

Anyway in all likelihood, I will be trying to remove E completely and clarify docs on D in the coming weeks. And also try to drop the size of the counters per our discussions

Thanks.



>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> https://www.efficios.com
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:16    [W:0.133 / U:3.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site