Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rcu/doc: Add a quick quiz to explain further why we need smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() | From | Akira Yokosawa <> | Date | Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:58:50 +0900 |
| |
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 17:48:13 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 09:28:10AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:57:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 05:50:29PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >>>> Add some missing critical pieces of explanation to understand the need >>>> for full memory barriers throughout the whole grace period state machine, >>>> thanks to Paul's explanations. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> >>>> Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org> >>>> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> >>>> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> >>> >>> Nice!!! And not bad wording either, though I still could not resist the >>> urge to wordsmith further. Plus I combined your two examples, in order to >>> provide a trivial example use of the polling interfaces, if nothing else. >>> >>> Please let me know if I messed anything up. >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> See minor tweaks below to satisfy sphinx. >> >>> >>> Thanx, Paul >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> commit f21b8fbdf9a59553da825265e92cedb639b4ba3c >>> Author: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> >>> Date: Thu Jun 10 17:50:29 2021 +0200 >>> >>> rcu/doc: Add a quick quiz to explain further why we need smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() >>> >>> Add some missing critical pieces of explanation to understand the need >>> for full memory barriers throughout the whole grace period state machine, >>> thanks to Paul's explanations. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> >>> Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org> >>> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> >>> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> >>> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst >>> index 11cdab037bff..3cd5cb4d86e5 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst >>> @@ -112,6 +112,35 @@ on PowerPC. >>> The ``smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()`` invocations prevent this >>> ``WARN_ON()`` from triggering. >>> >>> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> +| **Quick Quiz**: | >>> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> +| But the whole chain of rcu_node-structure locking guarantees that | >>> +| readers see all pre-grace-period accesses from the updater and | >>> +| also guarantees that the updater to see all post-grace-period | >>> +| accesses from the readers. So why do we need all of those calls | >>> +| to smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()? | >>> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> +| **Answer**: | >>> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> +| Because we must provide ordering for RCU's polling grace-period | >>> +| primitives, for example, get_state_synchronize_rcu() and | >>> +| poll_state_synchronize_rcu(). For example: | >>> +| | >>> +| CPU 0 CPU 1 | >>> +| ---- ---- | >>> +| WRITE_ONCE(X, 1) WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1) | >>> +| g = get_state_synchronize_rcu() smp_mb() | >>> +| while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(g)) r1 = READ_ONCE(X) | >>> +| continue; | >> >> This indent causes warnings from sphinx: >> >> Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst:135: WARNING: Unexpected indentation. >> Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst:137: WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent >> >>> +| r0 = READ_ONCE(Y) | >>> +| | >>> +| RCU guarantees that that the outcome r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 will not | >>> +| happen, even if CPU 1 is in an RCU extended quiescent state (idle | >>> +| or offline) and thus won't interact directly with the RCU core | >>> +| processing at all. | >>> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> + >>> This approach must be extended to include idle CPUs, which need >>> RCU's grace-period memory ordering guarantee to extend to any >>> RCU read-side critical sections preceding and following the current >> >> The code block in the answer can be fixed as follows: >> >> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> +| **Answer**: | >> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> +| Because we must provide ordering for RCU's polling grace-period | >> +| primitives, for example, get_state_synchronize_rcu() and | >> +| poll_state_synchronize_rcu(). For example:: | >> +| | >> +| CPU 0 CPU 1 | >> +| ---- ---- | >> +| WRITE_ONCE(X, 1) WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1) | >> +| g = get_state_synchronize_rcu() smp_mb() | >> +| while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(g)) r1 = READ_ONCE(X) | >> +| continue; | >> +| r0 = READ_ONCE(Y) | >> +| | >> +| RCU guarantees that that the outcome r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 will not | >> +| happen, even if CPU 1 is in an RCU extended quiescent state (idle | >> +| or offline) and thus won't interact directly with the RCU core | >> +| processing at all. | >> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> >> Hint: Use of "::" and indented code block. > > Thank you! > > As in with the following patch to be merged into Frederic's original, > with attribution?
Sounds good to me!
Thanks, Akira
> > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst > index 3cd5cb4d86e5..bc884ebf88bb 100644 > --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst > @@ -125,15 +125,15 @@ The ``smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()`` invocations prevent this > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Because we must provide ordering for RCU's polling grace-period | > | primitives, for example, get_state_synchronize_rcu() and | > -| poll_state_synchronize_rcu(). For example: | > +| poll_state_synchronize_rcu(). For example:: | > | | > -| CPU 0 CPU 1 | > -| ---- ---- | > -| WRITE_ONCE(X, 1) WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1) | > -| g = get_state_synchronize_rcu() smp_mb() | > -| while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(g)) r1 = READ_ONCE(X) | > -| continue; | > -| r0 = READ_ONCE(Y) | > +| CPU 0 CPU 1 | > +| ---- ---- | > +| WRITE_ONCE(X, 1) WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1) | > +| g = get_state_synchronize_rcu() smp_mb() | > +| while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(g)) r1 = READ_ONCE(X) | > +| continue; | > +| r0 = READ_ONCE(Y) | > | | > | RCU guarantees that that the outcome r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 will not | > | happen, even if CPU 1 is in an RCU extended quiescent state (idle | >
| |