public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, will@kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, harisokn@amazon.com,
	cl@gentwo.org, ast@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, memxor@gmail.com,
	zhenglifeng1@huawei.com, xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com,
	rdunlap@infradead.org, joao.m.martins@oracle.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout()
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 15:39:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <acVTTmGCZL4QPln2@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260325202357.3e203314@pumpkin>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 08:23:57PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:32:49 +0000
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 03:42:10PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> ...
> > > Looking at the code I think the "sevl; wfe" pair should be higher up.  
> > 
> > Yes, I replied to your other message. We could move it higher indeed,
> > before the condition check, but I can't get my head around the ordering.
> > Can need_resched() check be speculated before the WFE? I need to think
> > some more.
> 
> I don't think speculation can matter.
> Both SEVL and WFE must be serialised against any other instructions
> that can change the event flag (as well as each other) otherwise
> everything is broken.

Welcome to the Arm memory model. We don't have any guarantee that an LDR
will only access memory after SEVL+WFE. They are not serialising.

> Apart from that it doesn't matter, what matters is the instruction
> boundary the interrupt happens at.

True. If an interrupt is taken before the LDR (that would be a
need_resched() check for example), then a prior WFE would not matter.
This won't work if we replace the IPI with a SEV though (suggested
somewhere in this thread).

> Actually both SEVL and WFE may be synchronising instructions and very slow.

Most likely not.

> So you may not want to put them in the fast path where the condition
> is true on entry (or even true after a retry).
> So the code might have to look like:
> 	for (;;) {
> 		VAL = mem;

If we only waited on the location passed to LDXR, things would have been
much simpler. But the osq_lock() also wants to wait on the TIF flags via
need_resched() (and vcpu_is_preempted()).

> 		if (cond(VAL)) return;

So the cond(VAL) here is actually a series of other memory loads
unrelated to 'mem'

> 		SEVL; WFE;
> 		if (cond(VAL)) return;

I think this will work in principle even if 'cond' accesses other memory
locations, though I wouldn't bother with an additional 'cond' call, I'd
expect SEVL+WFE to be mostly NOPs. However, 'cond' must not set a local
event, otherwise the power saving on waiting is gone.

> 		v1 = LDX(mem);
> 		if (v1 == VAL)
> 			WFE;
> 	}

I think it's cleaner to use Ankur's timeout API here for the very rare
case where an IPI hits at the wrong time. We then keep
smp_cond_load_relaxed() intact as it's really not meant to wait on
multiple memory locations to change. Any changes of
smp_cond_load_relaxed() with moving the WFE around are just hacks, not
the intended use of this API.

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-26 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-16  1:36 [PATCH v10 00/12] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 01/12] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 02/12] arm64: barrier: Support smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 03/12] arm64/delay: move some constants out to a separate header Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 04/12] arm64: support WFET in smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 05/12] arm64: rqspinlock: Remove private copy of smp_cond_load_acquire_timewait() Ankur Arora
2026-03-24  1:41   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-25  5:58     ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 06/12] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 07/12] atomic: Add atomic_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 08/12] locking/atomic: scripts: build atomic_long_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 09/12] bpf/rqspinlock: switch check_timeout() to a clock interface Ankur Arora
2026-03-24  1:43   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-25  5:57     ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 10/12] bpf/rqspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-03-24  1:46   ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 11/12] sched: add need-resched timed wait interface Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:36 ` [PATCH v10 12/12] cpuidle/poll_state: Wait for need-resched via tif_need_resched_relaxed_wait() Ankur Arora
2026-03-16  1:49 ` [PATCH v10 00/12] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout() Andrew Morton
2026-03-16 22:08   ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-16 23:37     ` David Laight
2026-03-17  6:53       ` Ankur Arora
2026-03-17  9:17         ` David Laight
2026-03-25 13:53           ` Catalin Marinas
2026-03-25 15:42             ` David Laight
2026-03-25 16:32               ` Catalin Marinas
2026-03-25 20:23                 ` David Laight
2026-03-26 15:39                   ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2026-03-25 15:55       ` Catalin Marinas
2026-03-25 19:36         ` David Laight

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=acVTTmGCZL4QPln2@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ankur.a.arora@oracle.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=harisokn@amazon.com \
    --cc=joao.m.martins@oracle.com \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.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