On Friday 13 May 2011 11:28:33 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 13/05/2011 17:41 Max Laier said the following:
> > this ncpus isn't the one you are looking for.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Here's an updated patch:
Can you attach the patch, so I can apply it locally. This code is really hard
to read without context. Some more comments inline ...
>
> Index: sys/kern/subr_smp.c
> ===================================================================
> --- sys/kern/subr_smp.c (revision 221835)
> +++ sys/kern/subr_smp.c (working copy)
> @@ -316,19 +316,14 @@
> void (*local_action_func)(void*) = smp_rv_action_func;
> void (*local_teardown_func)(void*) = smp_rv_teardown_func;
>
> - /* Ensure we have up-to-date values. */
> - atomic_add_acq_int(&smp_rv_waiters[0], 1);
> - while (smp_rv_waiters[0] < smp_rv_ncpus)
> - cpu_spinwait();
> -
You really need this for architectures that need the memory barrier to ensure
consistency. We also need to move the reads of smp_rv_* below this point to
provide a consistent view.
> /* setup function */
> if (local_setup_func != smp_no_rendevous_barrier) {
> if (smp_rv_setup_func != NULL)
> smp_rv_setup_func(smp_rv_func_arg);
>
> /* spin on entry rendezvous */
> - atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[1], 1);
> - while (smp_rv_waiters[1] < smp_rv_ncpus)
> + atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[0], 1);
> + while (smp_rv_waiters[0] < smp_rv_ncpus)
> cpu_spinwait();
> }
>
> @@ -337,12 +332,16 @@
> local_action_func(local_func_arg);
>
> /* spin on exit rendezvous */
> - atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[2], 1);
> - if (local_teardown_func == smp_no_rendevous_barrier)
> + atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[1], 1);
> + if (local_teardown_func == smp_no_rendevous_barrier) {
> + atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[2], 1);
> return;
> - while (smp_rv_waiters[2] < smp_rv_ncpus)
> + }
> + while (smp_rv_waiters[1] < smp_rv_ncpus)
> cpu_spinwait();
>
> + atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[2], 1);
> +
> /* teardown function */
> if (local_teardown_func != NULL)
> local_teardown_func(local_func_arg);
> @@ -377,6 +376,10 @@
> /* obtain rendezvous lock */
> mtx_lock_spin(&smp_ipi_mtx);
>
> + /* Wait for any previous unwaited rendezvous to finish. */
> + while (atomic_load_acq_int(&smp_rv_waiters[2]) < smp_rv_ncpus)
> + cpu_spinwait();
> +
This does not help you at all. Imagine the following (unlikely, but not
impossible) case:
CPUA: start rendevouz including self, finish the action first (i.e. CPUA is
the first one to see smp_rv_waiters[2] == smp_rv_ncpus, drop the lock and
start a new rendevouz. smp_rv_waiters[2] == smp_rv_ncpus is still true on
that CPU, but ...
CPUB might have increased smp_rv_waiters[2] for the first rendevouz, but never
saw smp_rv_waiters[2] == smp_rv_ncpus, still ...
CPUA is allowed to start a new rendevouz which will leave CPUB stranded and
can lead to a deadlock.
I think this is also possible with another CPU starting the second rendevous.
> /* set static function pointers */
> smp_rv_ncpus = ncpus;
> smp_rv_setup_func = setup_func;
> @@ -395,7 +398,7 @@
> smp_rendezvous_action();
>
> if (teardown_func == smp_no_rendevous_barrier)
> - while (atomic_load_acq_int(&smp_rv_waiters[2]) < ncpus)
> + while (atomic_load_acq_int(&smp_rv_waiters[1]) < ncpus)
> cpu_spinwait();
>
> /* release lock */
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
