From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:32:30 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210181127460.22996@file.rdu.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <507F66F6.20704@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 04:28 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:07:21AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Even the previous patch is applied, percpu_down_read() still
> >>> needs mb() to pair with it.
> >>
> >> percpu_down_read uses rcu_read_lock which should guarantee that memory
> >> accesses don't escape in front of a rcu-protected section.
> >
> > You do realize that rcu_read_lock() does nothing more that a barrier(),
> > right?
> >
> > Paul worked really hard to get rcu_read_locks() to not call HW barriers.
> >
> >>
> >> If rcu_read_unlock has only an unlock barrier and not a full barrier,
> >> memory accesses could be moved in front of rcu_read_unlock and reordered
> >> with this_cpu_inc(*p->counters), but it doesn't matter because
> >> percpu_down_write does synchronize_rcu(), so it never sees these accesses
> >> halfway through.
> >
> > Looking at the patch, you are correct. The read side doesn't need the
> > memory barrier as the worse thing that will happen is that it sees the
> > locked = false, and will just grab the mutex unnecessarily.
>
> ---------------------
> A memory barrier can be added iff these two things are known:
> 1) it disables the disordering between what and what.
> 2) what is the corresponding mb() that it pairs with.
>
> You tried to add a mb() in percpu_up_write(), OK, I know it disables the disordering
> between the writes to the protected data and the statement "p->locked = false",
> But I can't find out the corresponding mb() that it pairs with.
Or alternativelly, instead of barrier, we can do this.
Mikulas
---
percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path
The lock is considered unlocked when p->locked is set to false.
Use barrier prevent reordering of operations around p->locked.
Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
---
include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
Index: linux-3.6.2-fast/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h
===================================================================
--- linux-3.6.2-fast.orig/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h 2012-10-17 20:48:40.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-3.6.2-fast/include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h 2012-10-18 17:19:24.000000000 +0200
@@ -66,6 +66,12 @@ static inline void percpu_down_write(str
static inline void percpu_up_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *p)
{
+ /*
+ * Make sure that other processes that are in rcu section and that
+ * may have seen partially modified state exit the rcu section and
+ * try to grab the mutex.
+ */
+ synchronize_rcu();
p->locked = false;
mutex_unlock(&p->mtx);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-18 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210151716310.10685@file.rdu.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210161924350.20581@file.rdu.redhat.com>
2012-10-17 2:23 ` [PATCH] percpu-rwsem: use barrier in unlock path Linus Torvalds
2012-10-17 5:58 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-10-17 5:58 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-10-17 15:07 ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-17 20:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-10-17 20:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-10-18 2:18 ` Lai Jiangshan
2012-10-18 4:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-10-18 16:17 ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-18 15:32 ` Mikulas Patocka [this message]
2012-10-18 19:56 ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-18 16:05 ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-17 9:56 ` Alan Cox
2012-10-18 16:00 ` Mikulas Patocka
2012-10-19 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.1210181127460.22996@file.rdu.redhat.com \
--to=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).