From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:11:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160527111117.GL3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160521201448.GA7429@p183.telecom.by>
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:14:49PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> lockless_dereference() is supposed to take pointer not integer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> include/linux/seqlock.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ static inline void raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seqcount_t *s)
>
> static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
> {
> - return lockless_dereference(s->sequence);
> + return lockless_dereference(s)->sequence;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
> * unsigned seq, idx;
> *
> * do {
> - * seq = lockless_dereference(latch->seq);
> + * seq = lockless_dereference(latch)->seq;
> *
> * idx = seq & 0x01;
> * entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
So while the code was dubious; I it is now wrong, but my head hurts.
I'll queue the below, TJs per-cpu change and the lockless_dereference()
void * cast trick.
---
Subject: seqcount: Re-fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()
Commit 50755bc1c305 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()") broke
raw_read_seqcount_latch().
If you look at the comment that was modified; the thing that changes is
the seq count, not the latch pointer.
* void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
* {
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
* latch->seq++;
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
*
* modify(latch->data[0], ...);
*
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
* latch->seq++;
* smp_wmb(); <- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
*
* modify(latch->data[1], ...);
* }
*
* The query will have a form like:
*
* struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
* {
* struct entry *entry;
* unsigned seq, idx;
*
* do {
* seq = lockless_dereference(latch->seq);
So here we have:
seq = READ_ONCE(latch->seq);
smp_read_barrier_depends();
Which is exactly what we want; the new code:
seq = ({ p = READ_ONCE(latch);
smp_read_barrier_depends(); p })->seq;
is just wrong; because it looses the volatile read on seq, which can now
be torn or worse 'optimized'. And the read_depend barrier is also placed
wrong, we want it after the load of seq, to match the above data[]
up-to-date wmb()s.
Such that when we dereference latch->data[] below, we're guaranteed to
observe the right data.
*
* idx = seq & 0x01;
* entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
*
* smp_rmb();
* } while (seq != latch->seq);
*
* return entry;
* }
So yes, not passing a pointer is not pretty, but the code was correct,
and isn't anymore now.
Change to explicit READ_ONCE()+smp_read_barrier_depends() to avoid
confusion and allow strict lockless_dereference() checking.
Fixes: 50755bc1c305 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
include/linux/seqlock.h | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
index 7973a821ac58..f3db247cebc8 100644
--- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
@@ -277,7 +277,9 @@ static inline void raw_write_seqcount_barrier(seqcount_t *s)
static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
{
- return lockless_dereference(s)->sequence;
+ int seq = READ_ONCE(s->sequence);
+ smp_read_barrier_depends();
+ return seq;
}
/**
@@ -331,7 +333,7 @@ static inline int raw_read_seqcount_latch(seqcount_t *s)
* unsigned seq, idx;
*
* do {
- * seq = lockless_dereference(latch)->seq;
+ * seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&latch->seq);
*
* idx = seq & 0x01;
* entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-27 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-21 20:14 [PATCH] seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch() Alexey Dobriyan
2016-05-22 10:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-22 18:50 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2016-05-23 9:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-25 19:57 ` Tejun Heo
2016-05-25 20:11 ` [PATCH] percpu: Revert ("percpu: Replace smp_read_barrier_depends() with lockless_dereference()") Tejun Heo
2016-06-03 10:58 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/barriers: Validate lockless_dereference() is used on a pointer type tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-06 21:31 ` Mateusz Guzik
2016-06-07 7:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-08 14:19 ` tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-27 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-06-03 10:46 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/seqcount: Re-fix raw_read_seqcount_latch() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
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=20160527111117.GL3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).