From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
boqun.feng@gmail.com, neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com, urezki@gmail.com,
rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] srcu: Yet more detail for srcu_readers_active_idx_check() comments
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 16:39:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y5yfQwUpCU5cEQpE@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y5ydp2YPRqGHq+eM@google.com>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 04:32:39PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:09:14PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
> > > >> 2. unlock()'s smp_mb() happened before Flip+smp_mb() , now the reader
> > > >> has no new smp_mb() that happens AFTER the flip happened. So it can
> > > >> totally sample the old idx again -- that particular reader will
> > > >> increment twice, but the next time, it will see the flipped one.
> > > >
> > > > I will let you transliterate both. ;-)
> > >
> > > I think I see what you mean now :)
> > >
> > > I believe the access I am referring to is the read of idx on one side and
> > > the write to idx on the other. However that is incomplete and I need to
> > > pair that with some of other access on both sides.
> > >
> > > So perhaps this:
> > >
> > > Writer does flip + smp_mb + read unlock counts [1]
> > >
> > > Reader does:
> > > read idx + smp_mb() + increment lock counts [2]
> > >
> > > And subsequently reader does
> > > Smp_mb() + increment unlock count. [3]
> > >
> > > So [1] races with either [2] or [2]+[3].
> > >
> > > Is that fair?
> >
> > That does look much better, thank you!
>
> Perhaps a comment with an ASCII diagram will help?
>
> Case 2:
And sorry I did not mention that Case 1 for me is the more trivial one where
the reader is preempted after sampling idx, and then all of them do
lock+unlock in quick succession to induce the counter-delta wrap around.
thanks,
- Joel
> Both the reader and the updater see each other's writes too late, but because
> of memory barriers on both sides, they will eventually see each other's write
> with respect to their own. This is similar to the store-buffer problem. This
> let's a single reader contribute a maximum (unlock minus lock) imbalance of 2.
>
> The following diagram shows the subtle worst case followed by a simplified
> store-buffer explanation.
>
> READER UPDATER
> ------------- ----------
> // idx is initially 0.
> read_lock() {
> READ(idx) = 0;
> lock[0]++; --------------------------------------------,
> flip() { |
> smp_mb(); |
> smp_mb(); |
> } |
> |
> // RSCS |
> |
> read_unlock() { |
> smp_mb(); |
> idx++; // P |
> smp_mb(); |
> } |
> |
> scan_readers_idx(0) { |
> count all unlock[0]; |
> | |
> | |
> unlock[0]++; //X <--not-counted--`-----, |
> | |
> } V `------,
> // Will make sure next scan |
> // will not miss this unlock (X) |
> // if other side saw flip (P) ,--`
> // Call this MB [1] |
> // Order write(idx) with |
> // next scan's unlock. |
> smp_mb(); ,---`
> read_lock() { |
> READ(idx)=0; |
> lock[0]++; ----------------> count all lock[0]; |
> smp_mb(); | } |
> } | | V
> | `---> // Incorrect contribution to lock counting
> | // upto a maximum of 2 times.
> |
> `---> // Pairs with MB [1]. Makes sure that
> // the next read_lock()'s' idx read (Y) is ordered
> // with above write to unlock[0] (X).
> |
> rcu_read_unlock() { |
> smp_mb(); <---------------`
> unlock[0]++;
> }
>
> read_lock() {
> READ(idx) = 1; //Y
> lock[1]++;
> ...
> }
> scan_readers_idx(0) {
> count all unlock[0]; //Q
> ...
> }
>
> This makes it similar to the store buffer pattern. Using X, Y, P and Q
> annotated above, we get:
>
> READER UPDATER
> X (write) P (write)
>
> smp_mb(); smp_mb();
>
> Y (read) Q (read)
>
>
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-16 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-14 19:13 [PATCH RFC] srcu: Yet more detail for srcu_readers_active_idx_check() comments Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-14 20:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-14 21:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-14 23:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-14 23:10 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-14 23:14 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 0:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 1:34 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 1:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 0:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 16:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-12-15 17:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 17:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 17:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 20:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 22:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 22:22 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-16 1:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-16 1:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-16 16:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-16 16:39 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2022-12-16 16:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-16 16:54 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-16 17:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-17 3:19 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-17 3:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-17 5:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-17 6:32 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 20:03 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 20:33 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 21:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 21:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 22:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-15 22:16 ` Joel Fernandes
2022-12-15 17:58 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-12-15 18:53 ` 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=Y5yfQwUpCU5cEQpE@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--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