linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/3] printk-rb: new printk ringbuffer implementation (writer)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 17:01:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87imm7820z.fsf@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20191221142235.GA7824@andrea

Hi Andrea,

On 2019-12-21, Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +	*desc_out = READ_ONCE(*desc);
>> +
>> +	/* Load data before re-checking state. */
>> +	smp_rmb(); /* matches LMM_REF(desc_reserve:A) */
>
> I looked for a matching WRITE_ONCE() or some other type of marked write,
> but I could not find it.  What is the rationale?  Or what did I miss?

This smp_rmb() matches LMM_TAG(desc_reserve:A).

>> +	do {
>> +		next_lpos = get_next_lpos(data_ring, begin_lpos, size);
>> +
>> +		if (!data_push_tail(rb, data_ring,
>> +				    next_lpos - DATA_SIZE(data_ring))) {
>> +			/* Failed to allocate, specify a data-less block. */
>> +			blk_lpos->begin = INVALID_LPOS;
>> +			blk_lpos->next = INVALID_LPOS;
>> +			return NULL;
>> +		}
>> +	} while (!atomic_long_try_cmpxchg(&data_ring->head_lpos, &begin_lpos,
>> +					  next_lpos));
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * No barrier is needed here. The data validity is defined by
>> +	 * the state of the associated descriptor. They are marked as
>> +	 * invalid at the moment. And only the winner of the above
>> +	 * cmpxchg() could write here.
>> +	 */
>
> The (successful) CMPXCHG provides a full barrier.  This comment suggests
> that that could be somehow relaxed?  Or the comment could be improved?

You are correct. There is no need for the full barrier here. This code
is based on Petr's POC. I focussed on making sure needed barriers are in
place, but did not try to eliminate excessive barriers.

> (The patch introduces a number of CMPXCHG: similar questions would
> apply to those other instances...)

LMM_TAG(data_push_tail:A) is the only CMPXCHG that requires its full
barrier. All others can be relaxed. I will make this change for the next
series.

Thanks for taking time for this.

John Ogness

  reply	other threads:[~2019-12-23 16:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-28  1:52 [RFC PATCH v5 0/3] printk: new ringbuffer implementation John Ogness
2019-11-28  1:52 ` [RFC PATCH v5 1/3] printk-rb: new printk ringbuffer implementation (writer) John Ogness
2019-12-02 15:48   ` Petr Mladek
2019-12-02 15:59     ` Petr Mladek
2019-12-02 16:37       ` John Ogness
2019-12-03  1:17         ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-12-03 14:18           ` Steven Rostedt
2019-12-05 12:01             ` John Ogness
2019-12-03  8:54         ` Petr Mladek
2019-12-03 14:13     ` John Ogness
2019-12-03 14:36       ` Petr Mladek
2019-12-09  9:19     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-12-09  7:42   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-12-09  9:00     ` John Ogness
2019-12-09  9:27   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-12-09  9:34     ` John Ogness
2019-12-21 14:22   ` Andrea Parri
2019-12-23 16:01     ` John Ogness [this message]
2020-01-03 10:24       ` Petr Mladek
2020-01-04 14:33         ` Andrea Parri
2019-11-28  1:52 ` [RFC PATCH v5 2/3] printk-rb: new printk ringbuffer implementation (reader) John Ogness
2019-12-03 12:06   ` Petr Mladek
2019-12-03 13:46     ` John Ogness
2019-12-04 12:54       ` Petr Mladek
2019-12-04 13:28         ` John Ogness
2019-12-09  8:43   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-12-09  9:03     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-12-09  9:09     ` John Ogness
2019-11-28  1:52 ` [RFC PATCH v5 3/3] printk-rb: add test module John Ogness
2019-12-09  8:44   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-12-05 13:46 ` [RFC PATCH v5 0/3] printk: new ringbuffer implementation Prarit Bhargava
2019-12-05 14:05   ` John Ogness
2019-12-06 14:16     ` Prarit Bhargava
2020-01-27 12:20 ` Eugeniu Rosca

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=87imm7820z.fsf@linutronix.de \
    --to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
    --cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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).