From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34DC514A614; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:03:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719414186; cv=none; b=VWTOtTDRHalVqMj54a4/P6/htUcVKRe7Q9sAY8d986PATuotlDBj1bgEbjcLBaCZHFR1j0XC889Gd9+Uu+601ISjU8lkE6oY5l0rzbLoGtDDdXpoTxB0MIDc2exaBDSjca0OrFENZTDtTN6zNvMQIgbgSbn0OMVU1UxJmKkr0TU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719414186; c=relaxed/simple; bh=K2Nvf+xU3tFR5sso/efVf5QZGdAqKAxqinCxi5UIV8k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GHdoV+hkkBo1KPY3NTnSwa19oKN9qyWzJG2onJZ/SxZ9Q22j5rCqEp3Dx7VwKNUjrWdlGcz27kqzSK53o3WJrn7yq5vGC90lPHviCPPVLIoD8ocXd2kutdEO0Zu5weLfGbsHLTKZGFZmI48jJVedVzTecNUbErxhEeDBYmBm7B8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=NCty31+R; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="NCty31+R" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71B92C116B1; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:03:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1719414185; bh=K2Nvf+xU3tFR5sso/efVf5QZGdAqKAxqinCxi5UIV8k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=NCty31+RONxoZYsKqQex3KpchcgumeWvwFkl9vOmh8E1clKCjijBA6nhwgQ+wg+vv Sfj8279WCkt36V2zM72jnFnwltvNxi8utClnOAzV0KgR5WiUv23k9HVnAWUdGkePtW cWnvcn/J6FxExzIjhp7usA3zpSwgsOXF7OyOjW+EpWCtd42u5yUQKjBefBDMDtqLpu mRxgDPM4gQrei1IvIm5BgOuV8awak4H+Np7HqM9tC6pWLwMH2Zla6NTuU2/s0bDMXp UVOaROVt1rx3wLMkyfso5Gi8HncgZW8+fxrfNJzkhb4TatuH3jSR9/4is6W06yFPVs W8sc2v2cQ/j2g== Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 17:03:02 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: "Paul E. McKenney" 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 Message-ID: References: <81f4e616-8125-4934-a8e2-fd5beae90995@paulmck-laptop> <20240604222652.2370998-1-paulmck@kernel.org> <26b85288-dd54-4ace-978d-39681de8fcad@paulmck-laptop> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <26b85288-dd54-4ace-978d-39681de8fcad@paulmck-laptop> Le Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:44:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 02:21:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Le Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:26:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker > > > > > > 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 > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > > --- > > > 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? > > Either works, just tell me which you are doing when you submit the patch. > Either way, I will arrange for there to be a single combined commit. Ok before I resend, how does the following comment look like? /* * The first failing snapshot is already ordered against the accesses * performed by the remote CPU after it exiting idle. * * The second snapshot therefore only needs to order against accesses * performed by the remote CPU prior it entering idle and therefore can * solely on acquire semantics. */ Thanks. > > Thanx, Paul >