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 07:36:58AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:29:55PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Last I heard, ARM's unlock/lock acted as a full barrier. Will?

Yeah, should do. unlock is release, lock is acquire and we're RCsc.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 16:42    [W:0.080 / U:3.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site