On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:39:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:29:59AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:48:51PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > > But as I said, we actually only need the pairing of orderings:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) load part of cmpxchg -> free()
> > > > > 2) object accesses -> store part of cmpxchg
> > > > >
> > > > > Ordering #1 can be achieved via control dependency as you pointed out
> > > > > that free()s very much includes stores. And ordering #2 can be
> > > > > achieved
> > > > > with RELEASE.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the code is right, I just thought the comment may be misleading.
> > > > > The
> > > > > reason we use cmpxchg_release() is just for achieving ordering #2, and
> > > > > not to order "prior loads and stores" with "a subsequent free".
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I missing some subtle orderings here?
> > > >
> > > > I would want to further quality 1), it must be no earlier than the load
> > > > of the last / successful ll/sc round.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Great, that's more accurate!
> > >
> > > > At that point we're guaranteed a reference count of 1 that _will_ drop
> > > > to 0, and thus nobody else (should) reference that memory anymore.
> > > >
> > > > If we agree on this, I'll update the comment :-) Will, do you too agree?
> > >
> > > Agreed ;-)
> > >
> > > Control dependencies and RELEASE are totally enough for the internal
> > > correctness of refcount_t along with its interactivity with free().
> > > People better not reply order guarantees other than this ;-)
> >
> > Hurm.. let me ruin my own argument.
> >
> > Since the free() stores could leak upwards until that ll, and object
> > stores can be delayed until the sc, we still have a problem. Just not
> > with the thread that free()s or any other thread that knew about the
> > object.
> >
> > The problem comes from any other thread doing an allocation, since its
> > possible to observe the memory as freed while there are stores pending
> > to it, we can have those delayed stores trample on our freshly allocated
> > and initialized object.
> >
> > The stores must really not be before the SC, so I fear we must either
> > add an smp_wmb() after the release, or punt and use the fully ordered
> > cmpxchg().
>
> And let me note here that RCU users can use a fully relaxed put, because
> call_rcu() guarantees a grace-period between the call_rcu and the
> free(), which in turn provides a full memory barrier that orders things.
>
> We could actually expose that to driver writers by doing something like:
>
> kref_put_rcu(struct kref *kref, struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t
> func)
> {
> if (refcount_dec_and_test_relaxed(&kref->refcount))
> call_rcu(head, func);
> }
>
> Do we want to go there?
No, please no...
