From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] rcu/nocb: Remove needless full barrier after callback advancing
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 14:11:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231115191128.15615-4-frederic@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231115191128.15615-1-frederic@kernel.org>
A full barrier is issued from nocb_gp_wait() upon callbacks advancing
to order grace period completion with callbacks execution.
However these two events are already ordered by the
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() barrier within the call to
raw_spin_lock_rcu_node() that is necessary for callbacks advancing to
happen.
The following litmus test shows the kind of guarantee that this barrier
provides:
C smp_mb__after_unlock_lock
{}
// rcu_gp_cleanup()
P0(spinlock_t *rnp_lock, int *gpnum)
{
// Grace period cleanup increase gp sequence number
spin_lock(rnp_lock);
WRITE_ONCE(*gpnum, 1);
spin_unlock(rnp_lock);
}
// nocb_gp_wait()
P1(spinlock_t *rnp_lock, spinlock_t *nocb_lock, int *gpnum, int *cb_ready)
{
int r1;
// Call rcu_advance_cbs() from nocb_gp_wait()
spin_lock(nocb_lock);
spin_lock(rnp_lock);
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
r1 = READ_ONCE(*gpnum);
WRITE_ONCE(*cb_ready, 1);
spin_unlock(rnp_lock);
spin_unlock(nocb_lock);
}
// nocb_cb_wait()
P2(spinlock_t *nocb_lock, int *cb_ready, int *cb_executed)
{
int r2;
// rcu_do_batch() -> rcu_segcblist_extract_done_cbs()
spin_lock(nocb_lock);
r2 = READ_ONCE(*cb_ready);
spin_unlock(nocb_lock);
// Actual callback execution
WRITE_ONCE(*cb_executed, 1);
}
P3(int *cb_executed, int *gpnum)
{
int r3;
WRITE_ONCE(*cb_executed, 2);
smp_mb();
r3 = READ_ONCE(*gpnum);
}
exists (1:r1=1 /\ 2:r2=1 /\ cb_executed=2 /\ 3:r3=0) (* Bad outcome. *)
Here the bad outcome only occurs if the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is
removed. This barrier orders the grace period completion against
callbacks advancing and even later callbacks invocation, thanks to the
opportunistic propagation via the ->nocb_lock to nocb_cb_wait().
Therefore the smp_mb() placed after callbacks advancing can be safely
removed.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 6 ++++++
kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 3ac3c846105f..c557302fc4f5 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2113,6 +2113,12 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
* Extract the list of ready callbacks, disabling IRQs to prevent
* races with call_rcu() from interrupt handlers. Leave the
* callback counts, as rcu_barrier() needs to be conservative.
+ *
+ * Callbacks execution is fully ordered against preceding grace period
+ * completion (materialized by rnp->gp_seq update) thanks to the
+ * smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() upon node locking required for callbacks
+ * advancing. In NOCB mode this ordering is then further relayed through
+ * the nocb locking that protects both callbacks advancing and extraction.
*/
rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags);
WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()));
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
index eb27878d46f1..d82f96a66600 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
@@ -779,7 +779,6 @@ static void nocb_gp_wait(struct rcu_data *my_rdp)
if (rcu_segcblist_ready_cbs(&rdp->cblist)) {
needwake = rdp->nocb_cb_sleep;
WRITE_ONCE(rdp->nocb_cb_sleep, false);
- smp_mb(); /* CB invocation -after- GP end. */
} else {
needwake = false;
}
--
2.42.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-15 19:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-15 19:11 [PATCH 0/3] rcu/nocb updates v2 Frederic Weisbecker
2023-11-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 1/3] rcu: Rename jiffies_till_flush to jiffies_lazy_flush Frederic Weisbecker
2023-11-15 19:11 ` [PATCH 2/3] rcu/nocb: Remove needless LOAD-ACQUIRE Frederic Weisbecker
2023-11-15 19:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2023-12-05 4:20 ` [PATCH 0/3] rcu/nocb updates v2 Paul E. McKenney
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=20231115191128.15615-4-frederic@kernel.org \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=urezki@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