All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Changwoo Min <multics69@gmail.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, void@manifault.com, arighi@nvidia.com,
	mingo@redhat.com, changwoo@igalia.com, kernel-dev@igalia.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_now()
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:50:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250108085026.GC23315@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241230095625.114363-3-changwoo@igalia.com>


> +__bpf_kfunc u64 scx_bpf_now(void)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq;
> +	u64 clock;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();
> +
> +	rq = this_rq();
> +	if (READ_ONCE(rq->scx.flags) & SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID) {
> +		/*
> +		 * If the rq clock is valid, use the cached rq clock.
> +		 *
> +		 * Note that scx_bpf_now() is re-entrant between a process
> +		 * context and an interrupt context (e.g., timer interrupt).
> +		 * However, we don't need to consider the race between them
> +		 * because such race is not observable from a caller.
> +		 */
> +		clock = READ_ONCE(rq->scx.clock);
> +	} else {
> +		/*
> +		 * Otherwise, return a fresh rq clock.
> +		 *
> +		 * The rq clock is updated outside of the rq lock.
> +		 * In this case, keep the updated rq clock invalid so the next
> +		 * kfunc call outside the rq lock gets a fresh rq clock.
> +		 */
> +		clock = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq));
> +	}
> +
> +	preempt_enable();
> +
> +	return clock;
> +}

> +static inline void scx_rq_clock_update(struct rq *rq, u64 clock)
> +{
> +	if (!scx_enabled())
> +		return;
> +	WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.clock, clock);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.flags, rq->scx.flags | SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID);
> +}


AFAICT it is possible to be used like:


  CPU0					CPU1

  lock(rq1->lock);
  ...
  scx_rq_clock_update(...);		scx_bpf_now();
  ...
  unlock(rq->lock);


Which then enables the following ordering problem:

  CPU0					CPU1

  WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.clock, clock);	if (rq->scx.flags & VALID)
  WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.flags, VALID);	  return rq->scx.clock;

Where it then becomes possible to observe VALID before clock is written.

That is, I rather think you need:

> +static inline void scx_rq_clock_update(struct rq *rq, u64 clock)
> +{
> +	if (!scx_enabled())
> +		return;
> +	WRITE_ONCE(rq->scx.clock, clock);
> +	smp_store_release(&rq->scx.flags, rq->scx.flags | SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID);
> +}

and:

	if (smp_load_acquire(&rq->scx.flags) & SCX_RQ_CLK_VALID) {
> +		/*
> +		 * If the rq clock is valid, use the cached rq clock.
> +		 *
> +		 * Note that scx_bpf_now() is re-entrant between a process
> +		 * context and an interrupt context (e.g., timer interrupt).
> +		 * However, we don't need to consider the race between them
> +		 * because such race is not observable from a caller.
> +		 */
> +		clock = READ_ONCE(rq->scx.clock);

Such that if you ovbserve VALID, you must then also observe the clock.

  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-08  8:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-30  9:56 [PATCH v7 0/6] sched_ext: Support high-performance monotonically non-decreasing clock Changwoo Min
2024-12-30  9:56 ` [PATCH v7 1/6] sched_ext: Relocate scx_enabled() related code Changwoo Min
2024-12-30  9:56 ` [PATCH v7 2/6] sched_ext: Implement scx_bpf_now() Changwoo Min
2025-01-08  8:50   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-01-08 16:04     ` Changwoo Min
2024-12-30  9:56 ` [PATCH v7 3/6] sched_ext: Add scx_bpf_now() for BPF scheduler Changwoo Min
2024-12-30  9:56 ` [PATCH v7 4/6] sched_ext: Add time helpers for BPF schedulers Changwoo Min
2024-12-30  9:56 ` [PATCH v7 5/6] sched_ext: Replace bpf_ktime_get_ns() to scx_bpf_now() Changwoo Min
2024-12-30  9:56 ` [PATCH v7 6/6] sched_ext: Use time helpers in BPF schedulers Changwoo Min
2025-01-02 18:54 ` [PATCH v7 0/6] sched_ext: Support high-performance monotonically non-decreasing clock Andrea Righi
2025-01-03 22:16 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-07 19:46   ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-07 19:53     ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-01-07 19:55       ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-08  8:51         ` Peter Zijlstra

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=20250108085026.GC23315@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
    --cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=multics69@gmail.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=void@manifault.com \
    /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.