On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 01:26:26PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 08:47:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > 1.  These guarantees are of full memory barriers, -not- compiler
> >     barriers.
> 
> What I'm saying is that wherever they are, they must come with
> compiler barriers.  I'm not aware of any synchronisation mechanism
> in the kernel that gives a memory barrier without a compiler barrier.
> 
> > 2.  These rules don't say exactly where these full memory barriers
> >     go.  SRCU is at one extreme, placing those full barriers in
> >     srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock(), and !PREEMPT Tree RCU
> >     at the other, placing these barriers entirely within the callback
> >     queueing/invocation, grace-period computation, and the scheduler.
> >     Preemptible Tree RCU is in the middle, with rcu_read_unlock()
> >     sometimes including a full memory barrier, but other times with
> >     the full memory barrier being confined as it is with !PREEMPT
> >     Tree RCU.
> 
> The rules do say that the (full) memory barrier must precede any
> RCU read-side that occur after the synchronize_rcu and after the
> end of any RCU read-side that occur before the synchronize_rcu.
> 
> All I'm arguing is that wherever that full mb is, as long as it
> also carries with it a barrier() (which it must do if it's done
> using an existing kernel mb/locking primitive), then we're fine.
> 
> > Interleaving and inserting full memory barriers as per the rules above:
> > 
> >     CPU1: WRITE_ONCE(a, 1)
> >     CPU1: synchronize_rcu   
> >     /* Could put a full memory barrier here, but it wouldn't help. */
> 
>       CPU1: smp_mb();
>       CPU2: smp_mb();
> 
> Let's put them in because I think they are critical.  smp_mb() also
> carries with it a barrier().
> 
> >     CPU2: rcu_read_lock();
> >     CPU1: b = 2;    
> >     CPU2: if (READ_ONCE(a) == 0)
> >     CPU2:         if (b != 1)  /* Weakly ordered CPU moved this up! */
> >     CPU2:                 b = 1;
> >     CPU2: rcu_read_unlock
> > 
> > In fact, CPU2's load from b might be moved up to race with CPU1's store,
> > which (I believe) is why the model complains in this case.
> 
> Let's put aside my doubt over how we're even allowing a compiler
> to turn
> 
>       b = 1
> 
> into
> 
>       if (b != 1)
>               b = 1
> 
> Since you seem to be assuming that (a == 0) is true in this case

I think Paul's example assuming (a == 0) is false, and maybe
speculative writes (by compilers) needs to added into consideration?
Please consider the following case (I add a few smp_mb()s), the case may
be a little bit crasy, you have been warned ;-)

        CPU1: WRITE_ONCE(a, 1)
        CPU1: synchronize_rcu called

        CPU1: smp_mb(); /* let assume there is one here */

        CPU2: rcu_read_lock();
        CPU2: smp_mb(); /* let assume there is one here */

        /* "if (b != 1) b = 1" reordered  */
        CPU2: r0 = b;       /* if (b != 1) reordered here, r0 == 0 */
        CPU2: if (r0 != 1)  /* true */
        CPU2:     b = 1;    /* b == 1 now, this is a speculative write
                               by compiler
                             */

        CPU1: b = 2;        /* b == 2 */

        CPU2: if (READ_ONCE(a) == 0) /* false */
        CPU2: ...
        CPU2  else                   /* undo the speculative write */
        CPU2:     b = r0;   /* b == 0 */

        CPU2: smp_mb();
        CPU2: read_read_unlock();

I know this is too crasy for us to think a compiler like this, but this
might be the reason why the model complain about this.

Paul, did I get this right? Or you mean something else?

Regards,
Boqun



> (as the assignment b = 1 is carried out), then because of the
> presence of the full memory barrier, the RCU read-side section
> must have started prior to the synchronize_rcu.  This means that
> synchronize_rcu is not allowed to return until at least the end
> of the grace period, or at least until the end of rcu_read_unlock.
> 
> So it actually should be:
> 
>       CPU1: WRITE_ONCE(a, 1)
>       CPU1: synchronize_rcu called
>       /* Could put a full memory barrier here, but it wouldn't help. */
> 
>       CPU1: smp_mb();
>       CPU2: smp_mb();
> 
>       CPU2: grace period starts
>       ...time passes...
>       CPU2: rcu_read_lock();
>       CPU2: if (READ_ONCE(a) == 0)
>       CPU2:         if (b != 1)  /* Weakly ordered CPU moved this up! */
>       CPU2:                 b = 1;
>       CPU2: rcu_read_unlock
>       ...time passes...
>       CPU2: grace period ends
> 
>       /* This full memory barrier is also guaranteed by RCU. */
>       CPU2: smp_mb();
> 
>       CPU1 synchronize_rcu returns
>       CPU1: b = 2;    
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to