Re: [Question] bluetooth/{bnep,cmtp,hidp}: memory barriers

Andrea Parri
2018-08-14T18:33:40Z

Hi Jeffy, Brian,

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:26:58PM +0800, JeffyChen wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Thanks for your mails, and sorry for the late response..
>
> On 08/14/2018 07:18 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >
> >commit 5da8e47d849d3d37b14129f038782a095b9ad049
> >Author: Jeffy Chen<jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
> >Date: Tue Jun 27 17:34:44 2017 +0800
> >
> > Bluetooth: hidp: fix possible might sleep error in hidp_session_thread
> >
> >that*some* kind of barrier was stuck in there simply as a response to
> >comments like this, that were going away:
> >
> >- *
> >- * Note: set_current_state() performs any necessary
> >- * memory-barriers for us.
> > */
> >- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >
> >+ /* Ensure session->terminate is updated */
> >+ smp_mb__before_atomic();
> >
> >
> >It was probably an attempt to fill in the gap for the
> >set_current_state() (and comment) which was being removed. I believe
> >Jeffy originally added more barriers in other places, but I convinced
> >him not to.
>
> right, i was trying to avoid losing memory-barriers when removing
> set_current_state and changing wake_up_process to wake_up_interruptible.
>
> and checking these code again, it's true the smp_mb__before_atomic before
> atomic_read is not needed, the smp_mb after atomic_inc(&session->terminate)
> should be enough.
>
> and as Brian point out, there's already an smp_store_mb at the end of
> wait_woken, i agree we can remove all the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() i
> wrongly added :)

Thank you for checking this once again. I'll send out a patch removing
these barriers shortly.

Andrea

P.S. I'm out of office for the next two weeks, so my replies could come
with some delay until ~ -rc1...

>
> >
> >I have to say, I'm not really up-to-speed on the use of manual barriers
> >in Linux (it's much preferable when they're wrapped into higher-level
> >data structures already), but I believe the main intention here is to
> >ensure that any change to 'terminate' that happened during the previous
> >"wait_woken()" would be visible to our atomic_read().
> >
> >Looking into wait_woken(), I'm feeling like none of these additional
> >barriers are necessary at all. I believe wait_woken() handles the
> >visibility issues we care about (that if we were woken for termination,
> >we'll see the terminating condition).
>
>