From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] blk-mq: drain I/O when all CPUs in a hctx are offline
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 09:13:21 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200529011321.GA1075489@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4fb6f0cf-a356-833e-25ab-47f9131c729b@acm.org>
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:37:47AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-05-27 22:19, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:33:48PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> My understanding is that operations that have acquire semantics pair
> >> with operations that have release semantics. I haven't been able to find
> >> any documentation that shows that smp_mb__after_atomic() has release
> >> semantics. So I looked up its definition. This is what I found:
> >>
> >> $ git grep -nH 'define __smp_mb__after_atomic'
> >> arch/ia64/include/asm/barrier.h:49:#define __smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >> barrier()
> >> arch/mips/include/asm/barrier.h:133:#define __smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >> smp_llsc_mb()
> >> arch/s390/include/asm/barrier.h:50:#define __smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >> barrier()
> >> arch/sparc/include/asm/barrier_64.h:57:#define __smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >> barrier()
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h:83:#define __smp_mb__after_atomic() do {
> >> } while (0)
> >> arch/xtensa/include/asm/barrier.h:20:#define __smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >> barrier()
> >> include/asm-generic/barrier.h:116:#define __smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >> __smp_mb()
> >>
> >> My interpretation of the above is that not all smp_mb__after_atomic()
> >> implementations have release semantics. Do you agree with this conclusion?
> >
> > I understand smp_mb__after_atomic() orders set_bit(BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE)
> > and reading the tag bit which is done in blk_mq_all_tag_iter().
> >
> > So the two pair of OPs are ordered:
> >
> > 1) if one request(tag bit) is allocated before setting BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE,
> > the tag bit will be observed in blk_mq_all_tag_iter() from blk_mq_hctx_has_requests(),
> > so the request will be drained.
> >
> > OR
> >
> > 2) if one request(tag bit) is allocated after setting BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE,
> > the request(tag bit) will be released and retried on another CPU
> > finally, see __blk_mq_alloc_request().
> >
> > Cc Paul and linux-kernel list.
>
> I do not agree with the above conclusion. My understanding of
> acquire/release labels is that if the following holds:
> (1) A store operation that stores the value V into memory location M has
> a release label.
> (2) A load operation that reads memory location M has an acquire label.
> (3) The load operation (2) retrieves the value V that was stored by (1).
>
> that the following ordering property holds: all load and store
> instructions that happened before the store instruction (1) in program
> order are guaranteed to happen before the load and store instructions
> that follow (2) in program order.
>
> In the ARM manual these semantics have been described as follows: "A
> Store-Release instruction is multicopy atomic when observed with a
> Load-Acquire instruction".
>
> In this case the load-acquire operation is the
> "test_and_set_bit_lock(nr, word)" statement from the sbitmap code. That
> code is executed indirectly by blk_mq_get_tag(). Since there is no
> matching store-release instruction in __blk_mq_alloc_request() for
> 'word', ordering of the &data->hctx->state and 'tag' memory locations is
> not guaranteed by the acquire property of the "test_and_set_bit_lock(nr,
> word)" statement from the sbitmap code.
If the order isn't guaranteed, either of the following two documents has to be wrong:
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt:
...
In all cases there are variants on "ACQUIRE" operations and "RELEASE" operations
for each construct. These operations all imply certain barriers:
(1) ACQUIRE operation implication:
Memory operations issued after the ACQUIRE will be completed after the
ACQUIRE operation has completed.
Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt:
...
Except for a successful test_and_set_bit_lock() which has ACQUIRE semantics and
clear_bit_unlock() which has RELEASE semantics.
Setting the tag bit is part of successful test_and_set_bit_lock(), which has ACQUIRE
semantics, and any Memory operations(test_bit(INACTIVE)) after the ACQUIRE will be
completed after the ACQUIRE has completed according to the above two documents.
Thanks,
Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-29 1:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20200527180644.514302-1-hch@lst.de>
[not found] ` <20200527180644.514302-9-hch@lst.de>
[not found] ` <7acc7ab5-02f9-e6ee-e95f-175bc0df9cbc@acm.org>
[not found] ` <20200528014601.GC933147@T590>
[not found] ` <1ec7922c-f2b0-08ec-5849-f4eb7f71e9e7@acm.org>
2020-05-28 5:19 ` [PATCH 8/8] blk-mq: drain I/O when all CPUs in a hctx are offline Ming Lei
2020-05-28 13:37 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-28 17:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-29 1:53 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-29 3:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-29 3:53 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-29 18:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-29 19:55 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-05-29 21:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-29 1:13 ` Ming Lei [this message]
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=20200529011321.GA1075489@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).