public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Cc: gregkh@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ostrikov@nvidia.com,
	adobriyan@gmail.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu,
	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the memory barriers
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:47:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1323607627.16764.13.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVNAAXAWtTncahb=sADHxmZOmdDOJA1FUX8Qt4ZR3To_qg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 10:22 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 23:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> >> CPU0                  CPU1
> >>
> >> atomic_set(v)
> >> smp_mb()
> >>                               smp_mb()
> >>                               atomic_dec_and_test(v)
> >>
> >> Without the barrier after atomic_set, CPU1 may see a stale
> >> value of v first, then decrease it, so may miss a release operation.
> >
> > Your example is doubly broken. If there's concurrency possible with
> > atomic_set() you've lost.
> 
> kref_init is guaranteed to be run only one time __before__ executing
> kref_get/kref_put.

If used properly, yes. But in that case you still don't need the
barrier. Whatever means you use to make the object visible to other CPUs
will include a barrier.

> > Lets change it to kref_get() aka atomic_inc():
> >
> >        CPU0            CPU1
> >
> >        atomic_inc()
> >                        atomic_dec_and_test()
> >
> > and
> >
> >                        atomic_dec_and_test()
> >        atomic_inc()
> >
> > For if the first is possible, then so is the second.
> 
> Yes, both are reasonable.
> 
> >
> > This illustrates that no matter how many barriers you put in, you're
> > still up shit creek without no paddle because the kref_put() can come in
> > before you do the kref_get(), making the kref_get() the invalid
> > operation.
> 
> So one smp_mb__before_atomic_inc should be added before atomic_inc
> to make sure that CPU0 can see the uptodate ref, right?

No.

Assume v == 1:

	CPU0		CPU1

			atomic_dec_and_test(); /* --v == 0 */
				kfree()

	smp_mb__before_atomic_inc()
	atomic_inc(); <-- OOPS!


You still got an access to already freed memory. There is no amount of
memory barriers that will solve this problem.

> But the initial value of kref is 1, so seems we don't need to consider
> the 0-refs.

There's a dec in there, isn't it. How much is 1-1?



  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-11 12:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-10 10:43 [PATCH 0/3] kref: inline and barriers Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-10 10:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] kref: Inline all functions Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-10 14:32   ` Ming Lei
2011-12-10 14:59     ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-12 22:11   ` Greg KH
2011-12-13  9:36     ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-13 17:15       ` Greg KH
2011-12-13 18:52         ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-13 19:11           ` Greg KH
2011-12-13 19:36             ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-10 10:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] kref: Implement kref_put in terms of kref_sub Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-10 10:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] kref: Remove the memory barriers Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-10 14:07   ` Ming Lei
2011-12-10 14:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-10 15:57       ` Ming Lei
2011-12-10 19:49         ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-11  2:22           ` Ming Lei
2011-12-11 12:47             ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-12-11 12:59               ` Ming Lei
2011-12-11 15:35                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-11 20:42                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-12  3:48                     ` Ming Lei
2011-12-12  8:54                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-12  9:57                         ` Ming Lei
2011-12-12 10:12                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-12 10:32                             ` Ming Lei
2011-12-12 11:05                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-12 11:19                                 ` Ming Lei
2011-12-12 11:13                               ` Eric Dumazet
2011-12-12 11:15                               ` Oliver Neukum
2011-12-12 10:20                           ` Oliver Neukum
2011-12-12 19:30                             ` Greg KH
2011-12-12 22:56                               ` Oliver Neukum
2011-12-12 23:14                                 ` Greg KH
2011-12-13 11:51                                   ` Oliver Neukum
2011-12-13  9:12                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-13  9:49                                   ` Oliver Neukum
2011-12-12  8:55                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-12 15:24                         ` Greg KH
2011-12-12  8:56                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-12 10:10                         ` Ming Lei

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=1323607627.16764.13.camel@twins \
    --to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=oneukum@suse.de \
    --cc=ostrikov@nvidia.com \
    --cc=tom.leiming@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