From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>,
Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: smp/core] smp: Use release stores for csd_lock_record() state
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:05:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260701080553.GQ48970@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <178274146231.3843924.7768569808457911760.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 01:57:42PM -0000, tip-bot2 for Usama Arif wrote:
> The following commit has been merged into the smp/core branch of tip:
>
> Commit-ID: ec9f57e6fefbc0497b9f047ebe60ef9adaae7480
> Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/ec9f57e6fefbc0497b9f047ebe60ef9adaae7480
> Author: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> AuthorDate: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 03:57:45 -07:00
> Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
> CommitterDate: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 15:53:14 +02:00
>
> smp: Use release stores for csd_lock_record() state
>
> __csd_lock_record() publishes per-CPU diagnostic state (cur_csd,
> cur_csd_func, cur_csd_info) that is consumed from a remote CPU by
> csd_lock_wait_toolong() via smp_load_acquire(&cur_csd). To order the
> matching cur_csd_func/cur_csd_info stores before the cur_csd
> publication, the producer issues smp_wmb() before writing cur_csd;
> to order the publication before the subsequent callback execution or
> CSD unlock, it issues smp_mb() after the write. The clear path
> mirrors this with smp_mb() before storing NULL into cur_csd so the
> preceding callback/unlock is observed first.
>
> The smp_mb() pair is heavier than what the consumer actually
> requires (on x86 each emits a locked full barrier). The consumer
> only needs to observe the matching cur_csd_func/cur_csd_info when it
> sees a non-NULL cur_csd, and to observe the preceding callback/unlock
> when it sees NULL -- both of which a release/acquire pair provides.
> The extra two-way ordering enforced by smp_mb() -- that cur_csd
> publication be observed before callback execution or unlock becomes
> visible -- would only matter if cur_csd were an exact live-state
> marker. csd_lock_wait_toolong() does not treat it that way: it
> snapshots cur_csd via smp_load_acquire() and then prints / dumps /
> re-IPIs without an RCU-style stall-ended recheck, so the diagnostic
> already tolerates the remote CPU completing its work between snapshot
> and report. cur_csd is best-effort context, not a precise stall
> boundary.
>
> Replace the smp_wmb() + plain store + smp_mb() in the publish path,
> and the smp_mb() + plain store in the clear path, with
> smp_store_release(). This pairs with the smp_load_acquire() in
> csd_lock_wait_toolong(): preceding cur_csd_func/cur_csd_info stores
> become visible before a remote reader observes the non-NULL
> publication, and any preceding callback/unlock becomes visible before
> a reader observes the NULL clear.
>
> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>
> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260629105745.1696683-1-usama.arif@linux.dev
> ---
> kernel/smp.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index a0bb56b..8a847a3 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -182,16 +182,22 @@ static atomic_t csd_bug_count = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> static void __csd_lock_record(call_single_data_t *csd)
> {
> if (!csd) {
> - smp_mb(); /* NULL cur_csd after unlock. */
> - __this_cpu_write(cur_csd, NULL);
> + /*
> + * Pairs with smp_load_acquire() of cur_csd in
> + * csd_lock_wait_toolong(): orders any preceding CSD
> + * callback/unlock before a remote reader observes NULL.
> + */
> + smp_store_release(this_cpu_ptr(&cur_csd), NULL);
So at some point I suppose we should have *this_cpu_store_release() I
suppose. As is this generates suboptimal code on x86. But since I don't
typically run with CSD_LOCK_WAIT_DEBUG=y, I'll pretend not to care at
this exact moment.
> return;
> }
> __this_cpu_write(cur_csd_func, csd->func);
> __this_cpu_write(cur_csd_info, csd->info);
> - smp_wmb(); /* func and info before csd. */
> - __this_cpu_write(cur_csd, csd);
> - smp_mb(); /* Update cur_csd before function call. */
> - /* Or before unlock, as the case may be. */
> + /*
> + * Pairs with smp_load_acquire() of cur_csd in
> + * csd_lock_wait_toolong(): publishes cur_csd_func and
> + * cur_csd_info before the non-NULL pointer becomes visible.
> + */
> + smp_store_release(this_cpu_ptr(&cur_csd), csd);
Let me say that RELEASE+ACQUIRE does not a full barrier make,
specifically smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire() do not have
RCsc, they're RCtso or possibly weaker still (I don't remember). The
thing that saves your bacon here is the address dependency.
> }
> static __always_inline void csd_lock_record(call_single_data_t *csd)
> @@ -272,7 +278,13 @@ static bool csd_lock_wait_toolong(call_single_data_t *csd, u64 ts0, u64 *ts1, in
> cpux = 0;
> else
> cpux = cpu;
> - cpu_cur_csd = smp_load_acquire(&per_cpu(cur_csd, cpux)); /* Before func and info. */
> + /*
> + * Pairs with smp_store_release() of cur_csd in __csd_lock_record():
> + * a non-NULL cur_csd here implies cur_csd_func and cur_csd_info
> + * are the matching publication; a NULL value is ordered after any
> + * preceding CSD callback/unlock on the remote CPU.
> + */
> + cpu_cur_csd = smp_load_acquire(&per_cpu(cur_csd, cpux));
> /* How long since this CSD lock was stuck. */
> ts_delta = ts2 - ts0;
> pr_alert("csd: %s non-responsive CSD lock (#%d) on CPU#%d, waiting %lld ns for CPU#%02d %pS(%ps).\n",
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-01 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-29 10:57 [PATCH v3] smp: Use release stores for csd_lock_record() state Usama Arif
2026-06-29 11:52 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-06-29 13:57 ` [tip: smp/core] " tip-bot2 for Usama Arif
2026-07-01 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-06-29 15:35 ` [PATCH v3] " Paul E. McKenney
2026-06-29 16:42 ` Kunwu Chan
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=20260701080553.GQ48970@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=d@ilvokhin.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=x86@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.