Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] sched_clock: Expose struct clock_read_data

From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@linutronix.de>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	jogness@linutronix.de, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Ben Dooks \(Codethink\)" <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] sched_clock: Expose struct clock_read_data
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 14:54:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200715065407.GB19269@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200715055650.GB225020@debian-buster-darwi.lab.linutronix.de>

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 07:56:50AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:05:07AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> >
> ...
> >
> > Provide struct clock_read_data and two (seqcount) helpers so that
> > architectures (arm64 in specific) can expose the numbers to userspace.
> >
> ...
> >
> > +struct clock_read_data *sched_clock_read_begin(unsigned int *seq)
> > +{
> > +	*seq = raw_read_seqcount(&cd.seq);
> > +	return cd.read_data + (*seq & 1);
> > +}
> > +
> ...
> 
> Hmm, this seqcount_t is actually a latch seqcount. I know the original
> code also used raw_read_seqcount(), but while at it, let's use the
> proper read API for seqcount_t latchers: raw_read_seqcount_latch().

Good point.  To be honest, I think myself cannot give a good judgement
for memory barrier related thing :)

I read a bit the document for the latch technique [1], comparing to
raw_read_seqcount_latch(), the function raw_read_seqcount() contains
smp_rmb(), IIUC, the *read* memory barrier is used to support for
kcsan.

The usage for smp_rmb() and kcsan flow is like below:

  sched_clock_read_begin()
    `-> raw_read_seqcount()
          `-> smp_rmb()
                `-> kcsan_atomic_next(KCSAN_SEQLOCK_REGION_MAX)

  sched_clock_read_retry()
    `-> read_seqcount_retry()
          `-> smp_rmb()
                `-> kcsan_atomic_next(0)

So the question is: should we support kcsan or not in this flow?

> raw_read_seqcount_latch() has no read memory barrier though, and a
> suspicious claim that READ_ONCE() pairs with an smp_wmb() (??). But if
> its implementation is wrong, let's fix it there instead.

I don't think we need pair with smp_wmb(), since it's mainly related
with data reading, so a smp_rmb() would be sufficient [2].

Thanks,
Leo

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/seqlock.h?h=v5.8-rc5#n321
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/seqlock.h?h=v5.8-rc5#n373

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel