Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/12] s390: Replace cmpxchg_double() with cmpxchg128()

[Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:32:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:23:05AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > So, Alexander Gordeev reported that this code was already prior to your
> > changes potentially broken with respect to missing READ_ONCE() within the
> > cmpxchg_double() loops.
> 
> Unless there's an early exit, that shouldn't matter. If you managed to
> read garbage the cmpxchg itself will simply fail and the loop retries.
> 
> > @@ -1294,12 +1306,16 @@ static void hw_perf_event_update(struct perf_event *event, int flush_all)
> >  		num_sdb++;
> >  
> >  		/* Reset trailer (using compare-double-and-swap) */
> > +		/* READ_ONCE() 16 byte header */
> > +		prev.val = __cdsg(&te->header.val, 0, 0);
> >  		do {
> > +			old.val = prev.val;
> > +			new.val = prev.val;
> > +			new.f = 0;
> > +			new.a = 1;
> > +			new.overflow = 0;
> > +			prev.val = __cdsg(&te->header.val, old.val, new.val);
> > +		} while (prev.val != old.val);
> 
> So this, and
...
> this case are just silly and expensive. If that initial read is split
> and manages to read gibberish the cmpxchg will fail and we retry anyway.

While I do agree that there is no need to necessarily read the whole 16
bytes atomically in advance here, there is still the problem about the
missing initial READ_ONCE() in the original code.
As I tried to outline here:

    For example:
    
            /* Reset trailer (using compare-double-and-swap) */
            do {
                    te_flags = te->flags & ~SDB_TE_BUFFER_FULL_MASK;
                    te_flags |= SDB_TE_ALERT_REQ_MASK;
            } while (!cmpxchg_double(&te->flags, &te->overflow,
                     te->flags, te->overflow,
                     te_flags, 0ULL));
    
    The compiler could generate code where te->flags used within the
    cmpxchg_double() call may be refetched from memory and which is not
    necessarily identical to the previous read version which was used to
    generate te_flags. Which in turn means that an incorrect update could
    happen.

Is there anything that prevents te->flags from being read several times?

> > +	/* READ_ONCE() 16 byte header */
> > +	prev.val = __cdsg(&te->header.val, 0, 0);
> >  	do {
> > +		old.val = prev.val;
> > +		new.val = prev.val;
> > +		*overflow = old.overflow;
> > +		if (old.f) {
> >  			/*
> >  			 * SDB is already set by hardware.
> >  			 * Abort and try to set somewhere
> > @@ -1490,10 +1509,10 @@ static bool aux_set_alert(struct aux_buffer *aux, unsigned long alert_index,
> >  			 */
> >  			return false;
> >  		}
> > +		new.a = 1;
> > +		new.overflow = 0;
> > +		prev.val = __cdsg(&te->header.val, old.val, new.val);
> > +	} while (prev.val != old.val);
> 
> And while this case has an early exit, it only cares about a single bit
> (although you made it a full word) and so also shouldn't care. If
> aux_reset_buffer() returns false, @overflow isn't consumed.

Yes, except that it is anything but obvious that @overflow isn't consumed.

> So I really don't see the point of this patch.

As stated above: READ_ONCE() is missing. And while at it I wanted to have a
consistent complete previous value - also considering that cdsg is not very
expensive.
And while it also reuse the returned values from cdsg, instead of throwing
them away and reading from memory again in a splitted and potentially
inconsistent way.