From: Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@linux.dev>
To: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>,
lkmm@lists.linux.dev, joelagnelf@nvidia.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marco.crivellari@suse.com,
paulmck@kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
rdunlap@infradead.org, riel@surriel.com, sshegde@linux.ibm.com,
tglx@kernel.org, ulfh@kernel.org, yury.norov@gmail.com,
rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: shakeel.butt@linux.dev, hannes@cmpxchg.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] smp: Use release stores for csd_lock_record() state
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 22:15:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030b968-4184-4818-99dc-aeb0956ef6a3@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260622163807.4187558-1-usama.arif@linux.dev>
On 6/23/26 00:38, Usama Arif wrote:
> __csd_lock_record() publishes per-CPU CSD debug state that is read by
> csd_lock_wait_toolong() on another CPU. The remote side first reads
> cur_csd with smp_load_acquire() and, when non-NULL, may then read the
> matching cur_csd_func and cur_csd_info fields.
>
> Use smp_store_release() when publishing cur_csd so that the preceding
> cur_csd_func and cur_csd_info stores are ordered before the pointer
> that csd_lock_wait_toolong() acquires. This replaces the open-coded
> smp_wmb() plus plain cur_csd store with the release operation that
> matches the smp_load_acquire() in csd_lock_wait_toolong().
>
> For the clear path, use smp_store_release(&cur_csd, NULL) so that
> clearing the diagnostic state remains ordered after the preceding
> callback/unlock work, without requiring a full barrier before the
> store. On x86 this removes the locked full barrier from the clear
> path; on weaker memory models it uses the release operation needed by
> the smp_load_acquire() in csd_lock_wait_toolong().
>
> The old code also had smp_mb() calls around cur_csd updates. Those would
> only be needed if cur_csd were treated as an exact live-state marker whose
> publication had to be observed before callback execution or CSD unlock.
The original comments around those updates seem to suggest a stronger
relationship:
/* Update cur_csd before function call. */
/* NULL cur_csd after unlock. */
The changelog characterizes cur_csd as best-effort diagnostic context.
Is there prior consensus that cur_csd carries no ordering relationship
to callback execution / unlock state,
or is this patch effectively relaxing that historical assumption?
Thanks, Kunwu
> CSD stall warnings do not currently have RCU-style stall-ended checks, so
> they already allow the stall to end while diagnostics are being assembled.
> The cur_csd record is therefore best-effort diagnostic context, not a
> precise completion/stall boundary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> ---
> v1 -> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/01437928-ff79-4d8e-823b-7f20146946f6@linux.dev/
> - Document where the smp_store_release() synchronizes with (Alan Stern,
> Randy Dunlap and Paul McKenney).
> ---
> kernel/smp.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index a0bb56bd8dda..685829875a3e 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);
> 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);
> }
>
> static __always_inline void csd_lock_record(call_single_data_t *csd)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-24 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-22 16:38 [PATCH v2] smp: Use release stores for csd_lock_record() state Usama Arif
2026-06-24 14:15 ` Kunwu Chan [this message]
2026-06-24 15:27 ` Usama Arif
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=1030b968-4184-4818-99dc-aeb0956ef6a3@linux.dev \
--to=kunwu.chan@linux.dev \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=joelagnelf@nvidia.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkmm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=marco.crivellari@suse.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=ulfh@kernel.org \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox