lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/7] xen/evtchn: read producer index only once
From
Date
On 08.02.21 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.02.2021 13:15, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 08.02.21 12:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.02.2021 11:59, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>> On 08.02.21 11:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 08.02.2021 11:41, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>>>> On 08.02.21 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06.02.2021 11:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>> In evtchn_read() use READ_ONCE() for reading the producer index in
>>>>>>>> order to avoid the compiler generating multiple accesses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> drivers/xen/evtchn.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/evtchn.c b/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
>>>>>>>> index 421382c73d88..f6b199b597bf 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static ssize_t evtchn_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
>>>>>>>> goto unlock_out;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c = u->ring_cons;
>>>>>>>> - p = u->ring_prod;
>>>>>>>> + p = READ_ONCE(u->ring_prod);
>>>>>>>> if (c != p)
>>>>>>>> break;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why only here and not also in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rc = wait_event_interruptible(u->evtchn_wait,
>>>>>>> u->ring_cons != u->ring_prod);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or in evtchn_poll()? I understand it's not needed when
>>>>>>> ring_prod_lock is held, but that's not the case in the two
>>>>>>> afaics named places. Plus isn't the same then true for
>>>>>>> ring_cons and ring_cons_mutex, i.e. aren't the two named
>>>>>>> places plus evtchn_interrupt() also in need of READ_ONCE()
>>>>>>> for ring_cons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem solved here is the further processing using "p" multiple
>>>>>> times. p must not be silently replaced with u->ring_prod by the
>>>>>> compiler, so I probably should reword the commit message to say:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... in order to not allow the compiler to refetch p.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still wouldn't understand the change (and the lack of
>>>>> further changes) then: The first further use of p is
>>>>> outside the loop, alongside one of c. IOW why would c
>>>>> then not need treating the same as p?
>>>>
>>>> Its value wouldn't change, as ring_cons is being modified only at
>>>> the bottom of this function, and nowhere else (apart from the reset
>>>> case, but this can't run concurrently due to ring_cons_mutex).
>>>>
>>>>> I also still don't see the difference between latching a
>>>>> value into a local variable vs a "freestanding" access -
>>>>> neither are guaranteed to result in exactly one memory
>>>>> access afaict.
>>>>
>>>> READ_ONCE() is using a pointer to volatile, so any refetching by
>>>> the compiler would be a bug.
>>>
>>> Of course, but this wasn't my point. I was contrasting
>>>
>>> c = u->ring_cons;
>>> p = u->ring_prod;
>>>
>>> which you change with
>>>
>>> rc = wait_event_interruptible(u->evtchn_wait,
>>> u->ring_cons != u->ring_prod);
>>>
>>> which you leave alone.
>>
>> Can you point out which problem might arise from that?
>
> Not any particular active one. Yet enhancing some accesses
> but not others seems to me like a recipe for new problems
> down the road.

I already reasoned that the usage of READ_ONCE() is due to storing the
value in a local variable which needs to be kept constant during the
following processing (no refetches by the compiler). This reasoning
very clearly doesn't apply to the other accesses.


Juergen
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 13:42    [W:0.061 / U:2.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site