lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] ring-buffer: Race when writing and swapping cpu buffer in parallel
On Wed 2014-07-23 12:34:58, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:28:48 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:43:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 04:43:24PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote:
> > > > 2. Go back, do the swap on any CPU, and do memory barriers via IPI.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if the needed memory barrier in rb_reserve_next_event()
> > > > could be avoided by calling IPI from ring_buffer_swap_cpu().
> > > >
> > > > I mean that rb_reserve_next_event() will include the current check
> > > > for swapped ring buffer without barriers. But
> > > > ring_buffer_swap_cpu() will interrupt the affected CPU and
> > > > basically do the barrier there only when needed.
> > > >
> > > > But I am not sure how this is different from calling
> > > > smp_call_function_single() from ring_buffer_swap_cpu().
> > > > And I am back on the question why it is dangerous with disabled
> > > > interrupts. I can't find any clue in git history. And I miss this
> > > > part of the picture :-(
> > >
> > > IIRC, deadlock in the case where two CPUs attempt to invoke
> > > smp_call_function_single() at each other, but both have
> > > interrupts disabled. It might be possible to avoid this by telling
> > > smp_call_function_single() not to wait for a response, but this often
> > > just re-introduces the deadlock at a higher level.
> >
> > FWIW, this is what smp_call_function_single_async() does. But then the call
> > must synchronized such that no concurrent call happen until the IPI completion.
> >
> > Otherwise you also have irq_work_queue_on() (not yet upstream but in tip/timers/nohz
> > and tip/sched/core).
>
> Well, the code in question must wait for the IPI to finish, thus as
> Paul said, we just push the issue to the caller.

JFYI, I already have a variant based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/21/416
It seems to work fine. I just want to double check few things before sending.

Best Regards,
Petr

PS: I am a bit distracted now because my wife is about to give birth
to our twins :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-23 19:21    [W:0.045 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site