From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] locking: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock() Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:39:10 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180703153910.GZ3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1530629639-27767-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:53:59PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > There are 11 interpretations of the requirements described in the header > comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(): one for each LKMM maintainer, and > one currently encoded in the Cat file. Stick to the latter (until a more > satisfactory solution is available). > > This also reworks some snippets related to the barrier to illustrate the > requirements and to link them to the idioms which are relied upon at its > call sites. > > Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Looks good, a couple of changes suggested below. Thanx, Paul > --- > Changes since v2: > - restore note about RCsc lock (Peter Zijlstra) > - add Peter's Acked-by: tag > > Changes since v1: > - rework the snippets (Peter Zijlstra) > - style fixes (Alan Stern and Matthew Wilcox) > - add Boqun's Suggested-by: tag > > include/linux/spinlock.h | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > kernel/sched/core.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h > index 1e8a464358384..d70a06ff2bdd2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h > +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h > @@ -114,29 +114,48 @@ do { \ > #endif /*arch_spin_is_contended*/ > > /* > - * This barrier must provide two things: > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock() provides the equivalent of a full memory barrier > + * between program-order earlier lock acquisitions and program-order later Not just the earlier lock acquisition, but also all program-order earlier memory accesses, correct? > + * memory accesses. > * > - * - it must guarantee a STORE before the spin_lock() is ordered against a > - * LOAD after it, see the comments at its two usage sites. > + * This guarantees that the following two properties hold: > * > - * - it must ensure the critical section is RCsc. > + * 1) Given the snippet: > * > - * The latter is important for cases where we observe values written by other > - * CPUs in spin-loops, without barriers, while being subject to scheduling. > + * { X = 0; Y = 0; } > * > - * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 > + * CPU0 CPU1 > * > - * for (;;) { > - * if (READ_ONCE(X)) > - * break; > - * } > - * X=1 > - * <sched-out> > - * <sched-in> > - * r = X; > + * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1); > + * spin_lock(S); smp_mb(); > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); r1 = READ_ONCE(X); > + * r0 = READ_ONCE(Y); > + * spin_unlock(S); > * > - * without transitivity it could be that CPU1 observes X!=0 breaks the loop, > - * we get migrated and CPU2 sees X==0. > + * it is forbidden that CPU0 does not observe CPU1's store to Y (r0 = 0) > + * and CPU1 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r1 = 0); see the comments > + * preceding the call to smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule() and in > + * try_to_wake_up(). Should we say that this is an instance of the SB pattern? (Am OK either way, just asking the question.) > + * > + * 2) Given the snippet: > + * > + * { X = 0; Y = 0; } > + * > + * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 > + * > + * spin_lock(S); spin_lock(S); r1 = READ_ONCE(Y); > + * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); smp_mb__after_spinlock(); smp_rmb(); > + * spin_unlock(S); r0 = READ_ONCE(X); r2 = READ_ONCE(X); > + * WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1); > + * spin_unlock(S); > + * > + * it is forbidden that CPU0's critical section executes before CPU1's > + * critical section (r0 = 1), CPU2 observes CPU1's store to Y (r1 = 1) > + * and CPU2 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r2 = 0); see the comments > + * preceding the calls to smp_rmb() in try_to_wake_up() for similar > + * snippets but "projected" onto two CPUs. > + * > + * Property (2) upgrades the lock to an RCsc lock. > * > * Since most load-store architectures implement ACQUIRE with an smp_mb() after > * the LL/SC loop, they need no further barriers. Similarly all our TSO > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index da8f12119a127..ec9ef0aec71ac 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -1999,21 +1999,20 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags) > * be possible to, falsely, observe p->on_rq == 0 and get stuck > * in smp_cond_load_acquire() below. > * > - * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up() > - * [S] p->on_rq = 1; [L] P->state > - * UNLOCK rq->lock -----. > - * \ > - * +--- RMB > - * schedule() / > - * LOCK rq->lock -----' > - * UNLOCK rq->lock > + * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up() > + * STORE p->on_rq = 1 LOAD p->state > + * UNLOCK rq->lock > + * > + * __schedule() (switch to task 'p') > + * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb(); > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); > + * UNLOCK rq->lock > * > * [task p] > - * [S] p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE [L] p->on_rq > + * STORE p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE LOAD p->on_rq > * > - * Pairs with the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock from the > - * last wakeup of our task and the schedule that got our task > - * current. > + * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in > + * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(). > */ > smp_rmb(); > if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags)) > @@ -2027,15 +2026,17 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags) > * One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself > * from the runqueue. > * > - * [S] ->on_cpu = 1; [L] ->on_rq > - * UNLOCK rq->lock > - * RMB > - * LOCK rq->lock > - * [S] ->on_rq = 0; [L] ->on_cpu > + * __schedule() (switch to task 'p') try_to_wake_up() > + * STORE p->on_cpu = 1 LOAD p->on_rq > + * UNLOCK rq->lock > + * > + * __schedule() (put 'p' to sleep) > + * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb(); > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); > + * STORE p->on_rq = 0 LOAD p->on_cpu > * > - * Pairs with the full barrier implied in the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock > - * from the consecutive calls to schedule(); the first switching to our > - * task, the second putting it to sleep. > + * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in > + * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(). > */ > smp_rmb(); > > -- > 2.7.4 >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] locking: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock() Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:39:10 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180703153910.GZ3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1530629639-27767-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 04:53:59PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > There are 11 interpretations of the requirements described in the header > comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(): one for each LKMM maintainer, and > one currently encoded in the Cat file. Stick to the latter (until a more > satisfactory solution is available). > > This also reworks some snippets related to the barrier to illustrate the > requirements and to link them to the idioms which are relied upon at its > call sites. > > Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Looks good, a couple of changes suggested below. Thanx, Paul > --- > Changes since v2: > - restore note about RCsc lock (Peter Zijlstra) > - add Peter's Acked-by: tag > > Changes since v1: > - rework the snippets (Peter Zijlstra) > - style fixes (Alan Stern and Matthew Wilcox) > - add Boqun's Suggested-by: tag > > include/linux/spinlock.h | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > kernel/sched/core.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h > index 1e8a464358384..d70a06ff2bdd2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h > +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h > @@ -114,29 +114,48 @@ do { \ > #endif /*arch_spin_is_contended*/ > > /* > - * This barrier must provide two things: > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock() provides the equivalent of a full memory barrier > + * between program-order earlier lock acquisitions and program-order later Not just the earlier lock acquisition, but also all program-order earlier memory accesses, correct? > + * memory accesses. > * > - * - it must guarantee a STORE before the spin_lock() is ordered against a > - * LOAD after it, see the comments at its two usage sites. > + * This guarantees that the following two properties hold: > * > - * - it must ensure the critical section is RCsc. > + * 1) Given the snippet: > * > - * The latter is important for cases where we observe values written by other > - * CPUs in spin-loops, without barriers, while being subject to scheduling. > + * { X = 0; Y = 0; } > * > - * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 > + * CPU0 CPU1 > * > - * for (;;) { > - * if (READ_ONCE(X)) > - * break; > - * } > - * X=1 > - * <sched-out> > - * <sched-in> > - * r = X; > + * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1); > + * spin_lock(S); smp_mb(); > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); r1 = READ_ONCE(X); > + * r0 = READ_ONCE(Y); > + * spin_unlock(S); > * > - * without transitivity it could be that CPU1 observes X!=0 breaks the loop, > - * we get migrated and CPU2 sees X==0. > + * it is forbidden that CPU0 does not observe CPU1's store to Y (r0 = 0) > + * and CPU1 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r1 = 0); see the comments > + * preceding the call to smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule() and in > + * try_to_wake_up(). Should we say that this is an instance of the SB pattern? (Am OK either way, just asking the question.) > + * > + * 2) Given the snippet: > + * > + * { X = 0; Y = 0; } > + * > + * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 > + * > + * spin_lock(S); spin_lock(S); r1 = READ_ONCE(Y); > + * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); smp_mb__after_spinlock(); smp_rmb(); > + * spin_unlock(S); r0 = READ_ONCE(X); r2 = READ_ONCE(X); > + * WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1); > + * spin_unlock(S); > + * > + * it is forbidden that CPU0's critical section executes before CPU1's > + * critical section (r0 = 1), CPU2 observes CPU1's store to Y (r1 = 1) > + * and CPU2 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r2 = 0); see the comments > + * preceding the calls to smp_rmb() in try_to_wake_up() for similar > + * snippets but "projected" onto two CPUs. > + * > + * Property (2) upgrades the lock to an RCsc lock. > * > * Since most load-store architectures implement ACQUIRE with an smp_mb() after > * the LL/SC loop, they need no further barriers. Similarly all our TSO > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index da8f12119a127..ec9ef0aec71ac 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -1999,21 +1999,20 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags) > * be possible to, falsely, observe p->on_rq == 0 and get stuck > * in smp_cond_load_acquire() below. > * > - * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up() > - * [S] p->on_rq = 1; [L] P->state > - * UNLOCK rq->lock -----. > - * \ > - * +--- RMB > - * schedule() / > - * LOCK rq->lock -----' > - * UNLOCK rq->lock > + * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up() > + * STORE p->on_rq = 1 LOAD p->state > + * UNLOCK rq->lock > + * > + * __schedule() (switch to task 'p') > + * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb(); > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); > + * UNLOCK rq->lock > * > * [task p] > - * [S] p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE [L] p->on_rq > + * STORE p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE LOAD p->on_rq > * > - * Pairs with the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock from the > - * last wakeup of our task and the schedule that got our task > - * current. > + * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in > + * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(). > */ > smp_rmb(); > if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags)) > @@ -2027,15 +2026,17 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags) > * One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself > * from the runqueue. > * > - * [S] ->on_cpu = 1; [L] ->on_rq > - * UNLOCK rq->lock > - * RMB > - * LOCK rq->lock > - * [S] ->on_rq = 0; [L] ->on_cpu > + * __schedule() (switch to task 'p') try_to_wake_up() > + * STORE p->on_cpu = 1 LOAD p->on_rq > + * UNLOCK rq->lock > + * > + * __schedule() (put 'p' to sleep) > + * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb(); > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); > + * STORE p->on_rq = 0 LOAD p->on_cpu > * > - * Pairs with the full barrier implied in the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock > - * from the consecutive calls to schedule(); the first switching to our > - * task, the second putting it to sleep. > + * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in > + * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock(). > */ > smp_rmb(); > > -- > 2.7.4 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-03 15:37 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-06-28 10:41 [PATCH 0/3] sched/locking/doc: Miscellaneous fixes Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 10:41 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 10:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched: Use smp_mb() in wake_woken_function() Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 10:41 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 10:41 ` [PATCH 2/3] locking: Clarify requirements for smp_mb__after_spinlock() Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 10:41 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 13:02 ` Matthew Wilcox 2018-06-28 13:02 ` Matthew Wilcox 2018-06-28 13:10 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 13:10 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 13:49 ` Alan Stern 2018-06-28 13:49 ` Alan Stern 2018-06-28 13:52 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 13:52 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 15:05 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-06-28 15:05 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-06-28 17:30 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 17:30 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-02 12:50 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-07-02 12:50 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-07-02 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 " Andrea Parri 2018-07-02 15:11 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-02 15:37 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-07-02 15:37 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-07-03 8:49 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-03 8:49 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-03 14:53 ` [PATCH v3 " Andrea Parri 2018-07-03 14:53 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-03 15:39 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message] 2018-07-03 15:39 ` Paul E. McKenney 2018-07-03 17:07 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-03 17:07 ` Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 10:41 ` [PATCH 3/3] doc: Update wake_up() & co. memory-barrier guarantees Andrea Parri 2018-06-28 10:41 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-05 22:28 ` [PATCH 0/3] sched/locking/doc: Miscellaneous fixes Andrea Parri 2018-07-05 22:28 ` Andrea Parri 2018-07-06 10:36 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-07-06 10:36 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-07-06 14:43 ` Paul E. McKenney 2018-07-06 14:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20180703153910.GZ3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \ --cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \ --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \ --cc=corbet@lwn.net \ --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \ --cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \ --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \ --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \ --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ --cc=willy@infradead.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.