From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 02:35:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190603093528.GJ28207@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190603052626.nz2qktwmkswxfnsd@gondor.apana.org.au>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 01:26:26PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 08:47:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > 1. These guarantees are of full memory barriers, -not- compiler
> > barriers.
>
> What I'm saying is that wherever they are, they must come with
> compiler barriers. I'm not aware of any synchronisation mechanism
> in the kernel that gives a memory barrier without a compiler barrier.
Yes, if a given synchronization mechanism requires that memory references
need to be ordered, both the compiler and the CPU must maintain that
ordering.
> > 2. These rules don't say exactly where these full memory barriers
> > go. SRCU is at one extreme, placing those full barriers in
> > srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), and !PREEMPT Tree RCU
> > at the other, placing these barriers entirely within the callback
> > queueing/invocation, grace-period computation, and the scheduler.
> > Preemptible Tree RCU is in the middle, with rcu_read_unlock()
> > sometimes including a full memory barrier, but other times with
> > the full memory barrier being confined as it is with !PREEMPT
> > Tree RCU.
>
> The rules do say that the (full) memory barrier must precede any
> RCU read-side that occur after the synchronize_rcu and after the
> end of any RCU read-side that occur before the synchronize_rcu.
>
> All I'm arguing is that wherever that full mb is, as long as it
> also carries with it a barrier() (which it must do if it's done
> using an existing kernel mb/locking primitive), then we're fine.
Fair enough, and smp_mb() does provide what is needed.
> > Interleaving and inserting full memory barriers as per the rules above:
> >
> > CPU1: WRITE_ONCE(a, 1)
> > CPU1: synchronize_rcu
> > /* Could put a full memory barrier here, but it wouldn't help. */
>
> CPU1: smp_mb();
> CPU2: smp_mb();
What is CPU2's smp_mb() ordering? In other words, what comment would
you put on each of the above smp_mb() calls?
> Let's put them in because I think they are critical. smp_mb() also
> carries with it a barrier().
Again, agreed, smp_mb() implies barrier().
> > CPU2: rcu_read_lock();
> > CPU1: b = 2;
> > CPU2: if (READ_ONCE(a) == 0)
> > CPU2: if (b != 1) /* Weakly ordered CPU moved this up! */
> > CPU2: b = 1;
> > CPU2: rcu_read_unlock
> >
> > In fact, CPU2's load from b might be moved up to race with CPU1's store,
> > which (I believe) is why the model complains in this case.
>
> Let's put aside my doubt over how we're even allowing a compiler
> to turn
>
> b = 1
>
> into
>
> if (b != 1)
> b = 1
>
> Since you seem to be assuming that (a == 0) is true in this case
> (as the assignment b = 1 is carried out), then because of the
> presence of the full memory barrier, the RCU read-side section
> must have started prior to the synchronize_rcu. This means that
> synchronize_rcu is not allowed to return until at least the end
> of the grace period, or at least until the end of rcu_read_unlock.
>
> So it actually should be:
>
> CPU1: WRITE_ONCE(a, 1)
> CPU1: synchronize_rcu called
> /* Could put a full memory barrier here, but it wouldn't help. */
>
> CPU1: smp_mb();
> CPU2: smp_mb();
>
> CPU2: grace period starts
> ...time passes...
> CPU2: rcu_read_lock();
> CPU2: if (READ_ONCE(a) == 0)
> CPU2: if (b != 1) /* Weakly ordered CPU moved this up! */
> CPU2: b = 1;
> CPU2: rcu_read_unlock
> ...time passes...
> CPU2: grace period ends
>
> /* This full memory barrier is also guaranteed by RCU. */
> CPU2: smp_mb();
But in this case, given that there are no more statements for CPU2,
what is this smp_mb() ordering?
Thanx, Paul
> CPU1 synchronize_rcu returns
> CPU1: b = 2;
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-03 9:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-10 0:57 [rcu] kernel BUG at include/linux/pagemap.h:149! Fengguang Wu
2015-09-10 10:25 ` Boqun Feng
2015-09-10 17:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-11 2:19 ` Boqun Feng
[not found] ` <CAJzB8QG=1iZW3dQEie6ZSTLv8GZ3YSut0aL1VU7LLmiHQ1B1DQ@mail.gmail.com>
2015-09-11 21:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-12 5:46 ` Boqun Feng
2015-09-21 19:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2015-09-21 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-02 5:56 ` rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier Herbert Xu
2019-06-02 20:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-03 2:46 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-03 3:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-03 4:01 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-03 4:17 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-03 7:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-03 8:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-03 15:26 ` David Laight
2019-06-03 15:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-03 5:26 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-03 6:42 ` Boqun Feng
2019-06-03 20:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-04 14:44 ` Alan Stern
2019-06-04 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-04 17:00 ` Alan Stern
2019-06-04 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-07 14:09 ` inet: frags: Turn fqdir->dead into an int for old Alphas Herbert Xu
2019-06-07 15:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2019-06-07 15:32 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-07 16:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2019-06-07 16:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-08 15:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-08 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-08 17:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-08 18:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-08 18:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-06 4:51 ` rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier Herbert Xu
2019-06-06 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-06 6:14 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-06 9:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-06 9:28 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-06 10:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-06 13:38 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-06 13:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-06 8:16 ` Andrea Parri
2019-06-06 14:19 ` Alan Stern
2019-06-08 15:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-08 15:56 ` Alan Stern
2019-06-08 16:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-03 9:35 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-06-06 8:38 ` Andrea Parri
2019-06-06 9:32 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-03 0:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-03 3:03 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-03 9:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-03 15:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-03 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-03 19:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-03 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-04 21:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-05 2:21 ` Herbert Xu
2019-06-05 3:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-06-06 4:37 ` Herbert Xu
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=20190603093528.GJ28207@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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: 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).