From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE77C28CC5 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 15:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7EF206BB for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 15:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727283AbfFHP4G (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:56:06 -0400 Received: from netrider.rowland.org ([192.131.102.5]:33987 "HELO netrider.rowland.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727148AbfFHP4F (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:56:05 -0400 Received: (qmail 11733 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2019 11:56:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Jun 2019 11:56:04 -0400 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:56:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern X-X-Sender: stern@netrider.rowland.org To: "Paul E. McKenney" cc: Andrea Parri , Boqun Feng , Herbert Xu , Linus Torvalds , Frederic Weisbecker , Fengguang Wu , LKP , LKML , Netdev , "David S. Miller" , Luc Maranget , Jade Alglave Subject: Re: rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier In-Reply-To: <20190608151943.GD28207@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 8 Jun 2019, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:19:43AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Jun 2019, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > > This seems a sensible change to me: looking forward to seeing a patch, > > > on top of -rcu/dev, for further review and testing! > > > > > > We could also add (to LKMM) the barrier() for rcu_read_{lock,unlock}() > > > discussed in this thread (maybe once the RCU code and the informal doc > > > will have settled in such direction). > > > > Yes. Also for SRCU. That point had not escaped me. > > And it does seem pretty settled. There are quite a few examples where > there are normal accesses at either end of the RCU read-side critical > sections, for example, the one in the requirements diffs below. > > For SRCU, srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock() have implied compiler > barriers since 2006. ;-) > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html > index 5a9238a2883c..080b39cc1dbb 100644 > --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html > @@ -2129,6 +2129,8 @@ Some of the relevant points of interest are as follows: >
  • Hotplug CPU. >
  • Scheduler and RCU. >
  • Tracing and RCU. > +
  • ------------------------------------^ > +Accesses to User Mamory and RCU. ---------------------^ >
  • Energy Efficiency. >
  • > Scheduling-Clock Interrupts and RCU. > @@ -2521,6 +2523,75 @@ cannot be used. > The tracing folks both located the requirement and provided the > needed fix, so this surprise requirement was relatively painless. > > +

    ----------------------------------^ > +Accesses to User Mamory and RCU

    ---------------------^ Are these issues especially notable for female programmers? :-) Alan