All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, will@kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, harisokn@amazon.com,
	cl@gentwo.org, ast@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, memxor@gmail.com,
	zhenglifeng1@huawei.com, xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com,
	rdunlap@infradead.org, joao.m.martins@oracle.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout()
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:39:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <acVTTmGCZL4QPln2@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260325202357.3e203314@pumpkin>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 08:23:57PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:32:49 +0000
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 03:42:10PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> ...
> > > Looking at the code I think the "sevl; wfe" pair should be higher up.  
> > 
> > Yes, I replied to your other message. We could move it higher indeed,
> > before the condition check, but I can't get my head around the ordering.
> > Can need_resched() check be speculated before the WFE? I need to think
> > some more.
> 
> I don't think speculation can matter.
> Both SEVL and WFE must be serialised against any other instructions
> that can change the event flag (as well as each other) otherwise
> everything is broken.

Welcome to the Arm memory model. We don't have any guarantee that an LDR
will only access memory after SEVL+WFE. They are not serialising.

> Apart from that it doesn't matter, what matters is the instruction
> boundary the interrupt happens at.

True. If an interrupt is taken before the LDR (that would be a
need_resched() check for example), then a prior WFE would not matter.
This won't work if we replace the IPI with a SEV though (suggested
somewhere in this thread).

> Actually both SEVL and WFE may be synchronising instructions and very slow.

Most likely not.

> So you may not want to put them in the fast path where the condition
> is true on entry (or even true after a retry).
> So the code might have to look like:
> 	for (;;) {
> 		VAL = mem;

If we only waited on the location passed to LDXR, things would have been
much simpler. But the osq_lock() also wants to wait on the TIF flags via
need_resched() (and vcpu_is_preempted()).

> 		if (cond(VAL)) return;

So the cond(VAL) here is actually a series of other memory loads
unrelated to 'mem'

> 		SEVL; WFE;
> 		if (cond(VAL)) return;

I think this will work in principle even if 'cond' accesses other memory
locations, though I wouldn't bother with an additional 'cond' call, I'd
expect SEVL+WFE to be mostly NOPs. However, 'cond' must not set a local
event, otherwise the power saving on waiting is gone.

> 		v1 = LDX(mem);
> 		if (v1 == VAL)
> 			WFE;
> 	}

I think it's cleaner to use Ankur's timeout API here for the very rare
case where an IPI hits at the wrong time. We then keep
smp_cond_load_relaxed() intact as it's really not meant to wait on
multiple memory locations to change. Any changes of
smp_cond_load_relaxed() with moving the WFE around are just hacks, not
the intended use of this API.

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-26 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-16  1:36 [PATCH v10 00/12] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 01/12] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 02/12] arm64: barrier: Support smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 03/12] arm64/delay: move some constants out to a separate header Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 04/12] arm64: support WFET in smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-04-01 10:44   ` Catalin Marinas
2026-04-01 22:31     ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 05/12] arm64: rqspinlock: Remove private copy of smp_cond_load_acquire_timewait() Ankur Arora
2026-03-24  1:41   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-25  5:58     ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 06/12] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 07/12] atomic: Add atomic_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 08/12] locking/atomic: scripts: build atomic_long_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 09/12] bpf/rqspinlock: switch check_timeout() to a clock interface Ankur Arora
2026-03-24  1:43   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-25  5:57     ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 10/12] bpf/rqspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-24  1:46   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 11/12] sched: add need-resched timed wait interface Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 12/12] cpuidle/poll_state: Wait for need-resched via tif_need_resched_relaxed_wait() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:49 ` [PATCH v10 00/12] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout() Andrew Morton
2026-03-16 22:08   ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-16 23:37     ` David Laight
2026-03-17  6:53       ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-17  9:17         ` David Laight
2026-03-25 13:53           ` Catalin Marinas
2026-03-25 15:42             ` David Laight
2026-03-25 16:32               ` Catalin Marinas
2026-03-25 20:23                 ` David Laight
2026-03-26 15:39                   ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2026-03-25 15:55       ` Catalin Marinas
2026-03-25 19:36         ` David Laight
2026-04-02  7:01 ` Ankur Arora
2026-04-03 16:12 ` [PATCH v10 00/12] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed, acquire}_timeout() Okanovic, Haris

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=acVTTmGCZL4QPln2@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ankur.a.arora@oracle.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=harisokn@amazon.com \
    --cc=joao.m.martins@oracle.com \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.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.