[PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] srcu: Provide ordering for CPU not involved in grace period

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
	fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] srcu: Provide ordering for CPU not involved in grace period
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:15:31 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1500934531-15333-4-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170724221511.GA15085@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Tree RCU guarantees that every online CPU has a memory barrier between
any given grace period and any of that CPU's RCU read-side sections that
must be ordered against that grace period.  Since RCU doesn't always
know where read-side critical sections are, the actual implementation
guarantees order against prior and subsequent non-idle non-offline code,
whether in an RCU read-side critical section or not.  As a result, there
does not need to be a memory barrier at the end of synchronize_rcu()
and friends because the ordering internal to the grace period has
ordered every CPU's post-grace-period execution against each CPU's
pre-grace-period execution, again for all non-idle online CPUs.

In contrast, SRCU can have non-idle online CPUs that are completely
uninvolved in a given SRCU grace period, for example, a CPU that
never runs any SRCU read-side critical sections and took no part in
the grace-period processing.  It is in theory possible for a given
synchronize_srcu()'s wakeup to be delivered to a CPU that was completely
uninvolved in the prior SRCU grace period, which could mean that the
code following that synchronize_srcu() would end up being unordered with
respect to both the grace period and any pre-existing SRCU read-side
critical sections.

This commit therefore adds an smp_mb() to the end of __synchronize_srcu(),
which prevents this scenario from occurring.

Reported-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
index 94bd6ed43ea3..c1c0ee3cce3b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
@@ -897,6 +897,15 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, bool do_norm)
 	__call_srcu(sp, &rcu.head, wakeme_after_rcu, do_norm);
 	wait_for_completion(&rcu.completion);
 	destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&rcu.head);
+
+	/*
+	 * Make sure that later code is ordered after the SRCU grace
+	 * period.  This pairs with the raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node()
+	 * in srcu_invoke_callbacks().  Unlike Tree RCU, this is needed
+	 * because the current CPU might have been totally uninvolved with
+	 * (and thus unordered against) that grace period.
+	 */
+	smp_mb();
 }
 
 /**
-- 
2.5.2
