Re: [PATCH rcu 3/6] rcu/exp: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first EQS snapshot

[Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>]

Le Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:49:58PM +0530, Neeraj upadhyay a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:58 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Le Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 02:14:14PM +0530, Neeraj upadhyay a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:58 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > This ordering is enforced through a full memory barrier placed right
> > > > before taking the first EQS snapshot. However this is superfluous
> > > > because the snapshot is taken while holding the target's rnp lock which
> > > > provides the necessary ordering through its chain of
> > > > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
> > > >
> > > > Remove the needless explicit barrier before the snapshot and put a
> > > > comment about the implicit barrier newly relied upon here.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 8 +++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > index 8a1d9c8bd9f74..bec24ea6777e8 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > @@ -357,7 +357,13 @@ static void __sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus(struct rcu_exp_work *rewp)
> > > >                     !(rnp->qsmaskinitnext & mask)) {
> > > >                         mask_ofl_test |= mask;
> > > >                 } else {
> > > > -                       snap = rcu_dynticks_snap(cpu);
> > > > +                       /*
> > > > +                        * Full ordering against accesses prior current GP and
> > > > +                        * also against current GP sequence number is enforced
> > > > +                        * by current rnp locking with chained
> > > > +                        * smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
> > >
> > > Again, worth mentioning the chaining sites sync_exp_reset_tree() and
> > > this function?
> >
> > How about this?
> >
> 
> Looks good to me, thanks!

And similar to the previous one, a last minute edition:

			/*
			 * Full ordering between remote CPU's post idle accesses
			 * and updater's accesses prior to current GP (and also
			 * the started GP sequence number) is enforced by
			 * rcu_seq_start() implicit barrier, relayed by kworkers
			 * locking and even further by smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
			 * barriers chained all the way throughout the rnp locking
			 * tree since sync_exp_reset_tree() and up to the current
			 * leaf rnp locking.
			 *
			 * Ordering between remote CPU's pre idle accesses and
			 * post grace period updater's accesses is enforced by the
			 * below acquire semantic.
			 */

Still ok?

Thanks.