From: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> To: <paulmck@kernel.org>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, <parri.andrea@gmail.com>, <will@kernel.org>, <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, <npiggin@gmail.com>, <dhowells@redhat.com>, <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>, <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, <akiyks@gmail.com>, <dlustig@nvidia.com>, <joel@joelfernandes.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, "andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com" <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:38:21 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <006e2bc6-7516-1584-3d8c-e253211c157e@fb.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200522174352.GJ2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> On 5/22/20 10:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:44:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:38:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>> Hello! >>>> >>>> Just wanted to call your attention to some pretty cool and pretty serious >>>> litmus tests that Andrii did as part of his BPF ring-buffer work: >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200517195727.279322-3-andriin@fb.com/ >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> I find: >>> >>> smp_wmb() >>> smp_store_release() >>> >>> a _very_ weird construct. What is that supposed to even do? >> >> Indeed, it looks like one or the other of those is redundant (depending >> on the context). > > Probably. Peter instead asked what it was supposed to even do. ;-) I agree, I think smp_wmb() is redundant here. Can't remember why I thought that it's necessary, this algorithm went through a bunch of iterations, starting as completely lockless, also using READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE at some point, and settling on smp_read_acquire/smp_store_release, eventually. Maybe there was some reason, but might be that I was just over-cautious. See reply on patch thread as well ([0]). [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4Bza26AbRMtWcoD5+TFhnmnU6p5YJ8zO+SoAJCDtp1jVhcQ@mail.gmail.com/ > >> Also, what use is a spinlock that is accessed in only one thread? > > Multiple writers synchronize via the spinlock in this case. I am > guessing that his larger 16-hour test contended this spinlock. Yes, spinlock is for coordinating multiple producers. 2p1c cases (bounded and unbounded) rely on this already. 1p1c cases are sort of subsets (but very fast to verify) checking only consumer/producer interaction. > >> Finally, I doubt that these tests belong under tools/memory-model. >> Shouldn't they go under the new Documentation/ directory for litmus >> tests? And shouldn't the patch update a README file? > > Agreed, and I responded to that effect to his original patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200522003433.GG2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72/ Yep, makes sense, I'll will move. > > Thanx, Paul >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> To: paulmck@kernel.org, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, parri.andrea@gmail.com, will@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com, dlustig@nvidia.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com" <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:38:21 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <006e2bc6-7516-1584-3d8c-e253211c157e@fb.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200522174352.GJ2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> On 5/22/20 10:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:44:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:38:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>> Hello! >>>> >>>> Just wanted to call your attention to some pretty cool and pretty serious >>>> litmus tests that Andrii did as part of his BPF ring-buffer work: >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200517195727.279322-3-andriin@fb.com/ >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> I find: >>> >>> smp_wmb() >>> smp_store_release() >>> >>> a _very_ weird construct. What is that supposed to even do? >> >> Indeed, it looks like one or the other of those is redundant (depending >> on the context). > > Probably. Peter instead asked what it was supposed to even do. ;-) I agree, I think smp_wmb() is redundant here. Can't remember why I thought that it's necessary, this algorithm went through a bunch of iterations, starting as completely lockless, also using READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE at some point, and settling on smp_read_acquire/smp_store_release, eventually. Maybe there was some reason, but might be that I was just over-cautious. See reply on patch thread as well ([0]). [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4Bza26AbRMtWcoD5+TFhnmnU6p5YJ8zO+SoAJCDtp1jVhcQ@mail.gmail.com/ > >> Also, what use is a spinlock that is accessed in only one thread? > > Multiple writers synchronize via the spinlock in this case. I am > guessing that his larger 16-hour test contended this spinlock. Yes, spinlock is for coordinating multiple producers. 2p1c cases (bounded and unbounded) rely on this already. 1p1c cases are sort of subsets (but very fast to verify) checking only consumer/producer interaction. > >> Finally, I doubt that these tests belong under tools/memory-model. >> Shouldn't they go under the new Documentation/ directory for litmus >> tests? And shouldn't the patch update a README file? > > Agreed, and I responded to that effect to his original patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200522003433.GG2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72/ Yep, makes sense, I'll will move. > > Thanx, Paul >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-22 19:39 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-05-22 0:38 Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests Paul E. McKenney 2020-05-22 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-05-22 10:56 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-05-22 14:36 ` Alan Stern 2020-05-22 17:45 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-05-22 14:32 ` Alan Stern 2020-05-22 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-05-22 19:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message] 2020-05-22 19:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-24 12:09 ` Akira Yokosawa 2020-05-25 18:31 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-25 22:01 ` Akira Yokosawa 2020-05-25 23:31 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-26 10:50 ` Akira Yokosawa 2020-05-26 14:02 ` Akira Yokosawa 2020-05-26 20:19 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-26 23:00 ` Akira Yokosawa 2020-05-27 0:09 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-26 20:15 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-26 22:23 ` Akira Yokosawa 2020-05-25 11:25 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-05-25 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-05-25 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-05-25 17:21 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-05-25 17:45 ` Paul E. McKenney 2020-05-28 22:00 ` Joel Fernandes 2020-05-28 22:16 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-05-29 5:14 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-29 12:36 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-05-29 20:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-29 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-05-25 14:53 ` Boqun Feng 2020-05-25 18:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-28 21:48 ` Joel Fernandes 2020-05-29 4:38 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2020-05-29 17:23 ` Joel Fernandes 2020-05-29 20:10 ` Andrii Nakryiko
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=006e2bc6-7516-1584-3d8c-e253211c157e@fb.com \ --to=andriin@fb.com \ --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \ --cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \ --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \ --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \ --cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \ --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \ --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \ --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \ --cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \ --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.