lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:16:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:55:51PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > I have a side question out of curiosity:
> >
> > How does synchronize_sched() work properly for sys_membarrier()?
> >
> > sys_membarrier() requires every other CPU does a smp_mb() before it
> > returns, and I know synchronize_sched() will wait until all CPUs running
> > a kernel thread do a context-switch, which has a smp_mb(). However, I
> > believe sched flavor RCU treat CPU running a user thread as a quiesent
> > state, so synchronize_sched() could return without that CPU does a
> > context switch.
> >
> > So why could we use synchronize_sched() for sys_membarrier()?
> >
> > In particular, could the following happens?
> >
> > CPU 0: CPU 1:
> > ========================= ==========================
> > <in user space> <in user space>
> > {read Y}(reordered) <------------------------------+
> > store Y; |
> > read X; --------------------------------------+ |
> > sys_membarrier(): <timer interrupt> | |
> > synchronize_sched(); update_process_times(user): //user == true | |
> > rcu_check_callbacks(usr): | |
> > if (user || ..) { | |
> > rcu_sched_qs() | |
> > ... | |
> > <report quesient state in softirq> | |
>
> The reporting of the quiescent state will acquire the leaf rcu_node
> structure's lock, with an smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which will
> one way or another be a full memory barrier. So the reorderings
> cannot happen.
>
> Unless I am missing something subtle. ;-)
>

Well, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in ARM64 is a no-op, and ARM64's lock
doesn't provide a smp_mb().

So my point is more like: synchronize_sched() happens to be a
sys_membarrier() because of some implementation detail, and if some day
we come up with a much cheaper way to implement sched flavor
RCU(hopefully!), synchronize_sched() may be not good for the job. So at
least, we'd better document this somewhere?

Regards,
Boqun

> Thanx, Paul
>
> > <return to user space> | |
> > read Y; --------------------------------------+----+
> > store X; |
> > {read X}(reordered) <-------------------------+
> >
> > I assume the timer interrupt handler, which interrupts a user space and
> > reports a quiesent state for sched flavor RCU, may not have a smp_mb()
> > in some code path.
> >
> > I may miss something subtle, but it just not very obvious how
> > synchronize_sched() will guarantee a remote CPU running in userspace to
> > do a smp_mb() before it returns, this is at least not in RCU
> > requirements, right?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
>
>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 16:30    [W:0.074 / U:18.076 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site