From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 1/6] rcu: Remove full ordering on second EQS snapshot
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:21:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZmBYOaQQQKapFGZo@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240604222652.2370998-1-paulmck@kernel.org>
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:26:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
>
> When the grace period kthread checks the extended quiescent state
> counter of a CPU, full ordering is necessary to ensure that either:
>
> * If the GP kthread observes the remote target in an extended quiescent
> state, then that target must observe all accesses prior to the current
> grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once
> it exits that extended quiescent state. Also the GP kthread must
> observe all accesses performed by the target prior it entering in
> EQS.
>
> or:
>
> * If the GP kthread observes the remote target NOT in an extended
> quiescent state, then the target further entering in an extended
> quiescent state must observe all accesses prior to the current
> grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once
> it enters that extended quiescent state. Also the GP kthread later
> observing that EQS must also observe all accesses performed by the
> target prior it entering in EQS.
>
> This ordering is explicitly performed both on the first EQS snapshot
> and on the second one as well through the combination of a preceding
> full barrier followed by an acquire read. However the second snapshot's
> full memory barrier is redundant and not needed to enforce the above
> guarantees:
>
> GP kthread Remote target
> ---- -----
> // Access prior GP
> WRITE_ONCE(A, 1)
> // first snapshot
> smp_mb()
> x = smp_load_acquire(EQS)
> // Access prior GP
> WRITE_ONCE(B, 1)
> // EQS enter
> // implied full barrier by atomic_add_return()
> atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICKS_IDX, EQS)
> // implied full barrier by atomic_add_return()
> READ_ONCE(A)
> // second snapshot
> y = smp_load_acquire(EQS)
> z = READ_ONCE(B)
>
> If the GP kthread above fails to observe the remote target in EQS
> (x not in EQS), the remote target will observe A == 1 after further
> entering in EQS. Then the second snapshot taken by the GP kthread only
> need to be an acquire read in order to observe z == 1.
>
> Therefore remove the needless full memory barrier on second snapshot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 28c7031711a3f..f07b8bff4621b 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ static bool rcu_dynticks_in_eqs(int snap)
> */
> static bool rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since(struct rcu_data *rdp, int snap)
> {
> - return snap != rcu_dynticks_snap(rdp->cpu);
> + return snap != ct_dynticks_cpu_acquire(rdp->cpu);
I guess I'm going to add a comment here to elaborate on the fact
it relies on the ordering enforced before the first snapshot. Would
you prefer a delta patch or an updated patch?
Thanks.
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.40.1
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-05 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-04 22:26 [PATCH rcu 0/6] Grace-period memory-barrier adjustments for v6.11 Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:26 ` [PATCH rcu 1/6] rcu: Remove full ordering on second EQS snapshot Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-05 12:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2024-06-05 18:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-26 15:03 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-26 15:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-26 15:44 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-27 11:27 ` [PATCH rcu 1/6 v2] " Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-04 22:26 ` [PATCH rcu 2/6] rcu: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first " Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-12 8:27 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-26 14:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-26 17:19 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-26 22:03 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-27 2:16 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-27 2:40 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-27 11:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-27 11:32 ` [PATCH rcu 2/6 v2] " Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-04 22:26 ` [PATCH rcu 3/6] rcu/exp: " Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-12 8:44 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-12 14:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-26 14:28 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-26 17:19 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-26 22:12 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-27 2:33 ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-27 11:36 ` [PATCH rcu 3/6 v2] " Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-27 18:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-28 11:20 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-28 20:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:26 ` [PATCH rcu 4/6] rcu: Remove full memory barrier on boot time eqs sanity check Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:26 ` [PATCH rcu 5/6] rcu: Remove full memory barrier on RCU stall printout Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:26 ` [PATCH rcu 6/6] rcu/exp: Remove redundant full memory barrier at the end of GP Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-12 5:21 ` [PATCH rcu 0/6] Grace-period memory-barrier adjustments for v6.11 Boqun Feng
2024-06-12 9:42 ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2024-06-12 14:46 ` 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=ZmBYOaQQQKapFGZo@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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