From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dbueso@suse.de,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
jade alglave <jade.alglave@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: add acquire barrier to read_slowpath exit when queue is empty
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 05:12:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190718121203.GL14271@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <79224323.853324.1563447052432.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 06:50:52AM -0400, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi Jan, Waiman, [+Jade and Paul for the litmus test at the end]
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 09:22:00PM +0200, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:19:04AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > > If you add a comment to the code outlining the issue (preferably as a
> > > > > litmus
> > > > > test involving sem->count and some shared data which happens to be
> > > > > vmacache_seqnum in your test)), then:
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Will
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. A comment just above smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() on why this
> > > > is needed will be great.
> > > >
> > > > Other than that,
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > >
> > > litmus test looks a bit long, would following be acceptable?
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> > > index 37524a47f002..d9c96651bfc7 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> > > @@ -1032,6 +1032,13 @@ static inline bool rwsem_reader_phase_trylock(struct
> > > rw_semaphore *sem,
> > > */
> > > if (adjustment && !(atomic_long_read(&sem->count) &
> > > (RWSEM_WRITER_MASK | RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF))) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * down_read() issued ACQUIRE on enter, but we can race
> > > + * with writer who did RELEASE only after us.
> > > + * ACQUIRE here makes sure reader operations happen only
> > > + * after all writer ones.
> > > + */
> >
> > How about an abridged form of the litmus test here, just to show the cod
> > flow? e.g.:
> >
> > /*
> > * We need to ensure ACQUIRE semantics when reading sem->count so that
> > * we pair with the RELEASE store performed by an unlocking/downgrading
> > * writer.
> > *
> > * P0 (writer) P1 (reader)
> > *
> > * down_write(sem);
> > * <write shared data>
> > * downgrade_write(sem);
> > * -> fetch_add_release(&sem->count)
> > *
> > * down_read_slowpath(sem);
> > * -> atomic_read(&sem->count)
> > * <ctrl dep>
> > * smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep()
> > * <read shared data>
> > */
>
> Works for me. The code is at 3 level of indentation, but I can try
> to squeeze it in for v4.
>
> >
> > In writing this, I also noticed that we don't have any explicit ordering
> > at the end of the reader slowpath when we wait on the queue but get woken
> > immediately:
> >
> > if (!waiter.task)
> > break;
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
> I'm assuming this isn't problem, because set_current_state() on line above
> is using smp_store_mb().
>
> >
> > > + smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > > rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
> > > lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_fast);
> > >
> > >
> > > with litmus test in commit log:
> > > ----------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------------
> > > C rwsem
> > >
> > > {
> > > atomic_t rwsem_count = ATOMIC_INIT(1);
> > > int vmacache_seqnum = 10;
> > > }
> > >
> > > P0(int *vmacache_seqnum, atomic_t *rwsem_count)
> > > {
> > > r0 = READ_ONCE(*vmacache_seqnum);
> > > WRITE_ONCE(*vmacache_seqnum, r0 + 1);
> > > /* downgrade_write */
> > > r1 = atomic_fetch_add_release(-1+256, rwsem_count);
> > > }
> > >
> > > P1(int *vmacache_seqnum, atomic_t *rwsem_count, spinlock_t *sem_wait_lock)
> > > {
> > > /* rwsem_read_trylock */
> > > r0 = atomic_add_return_acquire(256, rwsem_count);
> > > /* rwsem_down_read_slowpath */
> > > spin_lock(sem_wait_lock);
> > > r0 = atomic_read(rwsem_count);
> > > if ((r0 & 1) == 0) {
> > > // BUG: needs barrier
> > > spin_unlock(sem_wait_lock);
> > > r1 = READ_ONCE(*vmacache_seqnum);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > exists (1:r1=10)
> > > ----------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for writing this! It's definitely worth sticking it in the commit
> > log, but Paul and Jade might also like to include it as part of their litmus
> > test repository too.
Thank you for forwarding this! It may now be found at:
https://github.com/paulmckrcu/litmus/blob/master/manual/kernel/C-JanStancek-rwsem.litmus
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-18 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-16 16:04 [PATCH] locking/rwsem: use read_acquire in read_slowpath exit when queue is empty Jan Stancek
2019-07-16 16:53 ` Waiman Long
2019-07-16 18:34 ` Jan Stancek
2019-07-16 18:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-16 19:09 ` Waiman Long
2019-07-17 12:02 ` [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: add acquire barrier to " Jan Stancek
2019-07-17 13:13 ` Will Deacon
2019-07-17 14:19 ` Waiman Long
2019-07-17 19:22 ` Jan Stancek
2019-07-17 19:39 ` Waiman Long
2019-07-18 8:51 ` [PATCH v3] " Jan Stancek
2019-07-25 16:00 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/rwsem: Add missing ACQUIRE " tip-bot for Jan Stancek
2019-07-18 9:26 ` [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: add acquire barrier " Will Deacon
2019-07-18 10:50 ` Jan Stancek
2019-07-18 11:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-18 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-18 11:36 ` Jan Stancek
2019-07-18 12:12 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-07-18 10:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-18 11:45 ` Will Deacon
2019-07-18 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-17 15:33 ` Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190718121203.GL14271@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=jade.alglave@arm.com \
--cc=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.