Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())

Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-16T22:06:23Z

On 02/16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:32 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I was about to write a response, but found it to be a justification for
> > > the read_barrier_depends() at the end of the loop.
> >
> > I forgot to mention I don't understand the read_barrier_depends() at the
> > end of the loop as well ;)
>
> Suppose cpu0 adds to csd to cpu1:
>
>
> cpu0: cpu1:
>
> add entry1
> mb();
> send ipi
> run ipi handler
> read_barrier_depends()
> while (!list_empty()) [A]
> do foo
>
> add entry2
> mb();
> [no ipi -- we still observe entry1]
>
> remove foo
> read_barrier_depends()
> while (!list_empty()) [B]

Still can't understand.

cpu1 (generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt) does
list_replace_init(q->lock), this lock is also taken by
generic_exec_single().

Either cpu1 sees entry2 on list, or cpu0 sees list_empty()
and sends ipi.

> The read_barrier_depends() matches the mb() on the other cpu, without
> which the 'new' entry might not be observed.

And that mb() looks unneeded too. Again, because
generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() takes call_single_queue.lock
before it uses "data".

Even if I missed something (very possible), then I can't understand
why we need rmb() only on alpha.

Oleg.