On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 02:55:58PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:56:28PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > You're missing the point here. b and c could easily be allocated by a
> > > function
> > > alloc_b() that's in another file.
> >
> > I am still missing something.
> >
> > If by "allocated" you mean something like kmalloc(), the compiler doesn't
> > know the address. If you instead mean that there is a function that
> > returns the address of another translation unit's static variable, then
> > any needed ordering should preferably be built into that function's API.
> > Either way, one would hope for some documentation of anything the caller
> > needed to be careful of.
> >
> > > > Besides which, control dependencies should be used only by LKMM experts
> > > > at this point.
> > >
> > > What does that even mean? Control dependencies are everywhere.
> >
> > Does the following work better for you?
> >
> > "... the non-local ordering properties of control dependencies should be
> > relied on only by LKMM experts ...".
>
> No. I don't know what that means. And I think very few people would know.
>
> I just want to know if I use the one-time init pattern with a pointer to a
> data
> structure foo, are the readers using foo_use() supposed to use READ_ONCE() or
> are they supposed to use smp_load_acquire().
>
> It seems the answer is that smp_load_acquire() is the only safe choice, since
> foo_use() *might* involve a control dependency, or might in the future since
> it's part of another kernel subsystem and its implementation could change.
First, the specific issue of one-time init.
If you are the one writing the code implementing one-time init, it is your
choice. It seems like you prefer smp_load_acquire(). If someone sees
performance problems due to the resulting memory-barrier instructions,
they have the option of submitting a patch and either forking the
implementation or taking your implementation over from you, depending
on how that conversation goes.
Me, I have thus far managed to avoid relying on non-local ordering
from control dependencies. Then again, I have not been working on ring
buffers or on certain scheduler fastpaths.
Either way, the API should document the requirements on the user.
I leave analysis of DO_ONCE() on the various architectures to people
who know static branches better than I do.
First, the fully-locked version is fine with normal C-language loads,
as written in your July patch to recipes.txt.
Second, the flag-and-global variant of init_foo_if_needed() needs to use
smp_load_acquire(&foo_inited) if its callers are going to read from the
initialized data. The reason for this is that control dependencies order
later stores, not later loads. In this case READ_ONCE() absolutely does
not suffice. Oddly enough, except on DEC Alpha. ;-)
So this variant is also fine as written.
Third, your first pointer-based variant works with smp_load_acquire(),
but could instead use READ_ONCE() as long as it is reworked to something
like this:
static struct foo *foo;
static DEFINE_MUTEX(foo_init_mutex);
// The returned pointer must be handled carefully in the same
// way as would a pointer returned from rcu_derefeference().
// See Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
struct foo *init_foo_if_needed(void)
{
int err = 0;
struct foo *retp;
/* pairs with smp_store_release() below */
retp = READ_ONCE(foo);
if (retp)
return retp;
mutex_lock(&foo_init_mutex);
if (!foo) {
// The compiler doesn't know the address:
struct foo *p = alloc_foo();
if (p) /* pairs with smp_load_acquire() above */
smp_store_release(&foo, p);
else
err = -ENOMEM;
}
mutex_unlock(&foo_init_mutex);
return err;
}
There are more than 2,000 instances of the rcu_dereference() family of
primitives in the v5.8 kernel, so it should not be hard to find people
who are familiar with it. TL;DR: Just dereference the pointer and you
will be fine.
So again, your first pointer-based variant is fine as is, but can be
safely optimized if its users are comfortable using RCU. No special LKMM
expertise is required. And there is no reliance on non-local ordering
from any control dependency.
The second pointer-based variant that uses cmpxchg_release() can have
its read path sped up similarly:
// The returned pointer must be handled carefully in the same
// way as would a pointer returned from rcu_derefeference().
// See Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
struct foo *init_foo_if_needed(void)
{
struct foo *p;
struct foo *retp;
/* pairs with successful cmpxchg_release() below */
retp = READ_ONCE(foo);
if (retp)
return retp;
// The compiler doesn't know the address:
p = alloc_foo();
if (!p)
return -ENOMEM;
/* on success, pairs with smp_load_acquire() above and below */
if (cmpxchg_release(&foo, NULL, p) != NULL) {
free_foo(p);
/* pairs with successful cmpxchg_release() above */
smp_load_acquire(&foo);
}
return 0;
}
Again, this works fine if its users are comfortable using RCU, no special
LKMM knowledge is required. And again, there is no reliance on non-local
ordering from any control dependency.
In both cases, the only reason to avoid smp_load_acquire() is performance.
And init_foo_if_needed() would need to be on a pretty hot code path for
anyone to be able to see the performance difference.
In short, this is all about engineering tradeoffs, which include not only
performance and scalability, but also ease of use, maintainability, and
so on and so forth. I cannot possibly give you a "one size fits all"
answer, because one size does not fit all.
> > If this control dependency's non-local ordering places any requirements on
> > the users of that code, those requirements need to be clearly documented.
> > It is of course better if the control dependency's non-local ordering
> > properties are local to the code containing those control dependencies
> > so that the callers don't need to worry about the resulting non-local
> > ordering.
> >
> > > > But in the LKMM documentation, you are likely to find LKMM experts who
> > > > want to optimize all the way, particularly in cases like the one-time
> > > > init pattern where all the data is often local. And the best basis for
> > > > READ_ONCE() in one-time init is not a control dependency, but rather
> > > > ordering of accesses to a single variable from a single task combined
> > > > with locking, both of which are quite robust and much easier to use,
> > > > especially in comparison to control dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > My goal for LKMM is not that each and every developer have a full
> > > > understanding of every nook and cranny of that model, but instead that
> > > > people can find the primitives supporting the desired point in the
> > > > performance/simplicity tradoff space. And yes, I have more writing
> > > > to do to make more progress towards that goal.
> > >
> > > So are you saying people should use smp_load_acquire(), or are you saying
> > > people
> > > should use READ_ONCE()?
> >
> > C'mon, you know the answer to that! ;-)
> >
> > The answer is that it depends on both the people and the situation.
> >
> > In the specific case of crng, where you need address dependency
> > ordering but the pointed-to data is dynamically allocated and never
> > deallocated, READ_ONCE() now suffices [1]. Of course, smp_load_acquire()
> > also suffices, at the cost of extra/expensive instructions on some
> > architectures. The cmpxchg() needs at least release semantics, but
> > presumably no one cares if this operation is a bit more expensive than
> > it needs to be.
> >
> > So, is select_crng() used on a fastpath? If so, READ_ONCE()
> > might be necessary. If not, why bother with anything stronger than
> > smp_load_acquire()? The usual approach is to run this both ways on ARM
> > or PowerPC and see if it makes a significant difference. If there is
> > no significant difference, keep it simple and just use smp_load_acquire().
> >
> > If the code was sufficiently performance-insensitive, even better would
> > be to just use locking. My hope is that no one bothered with the atomics
> > without a good reason, but you never know.
> >
> > I confess some uncertainty as to how the transition from the global
> > primary_crng and the per-NUMA-node locks is handled. I hope that the
> > global primary_crng guards global state that is disjoint from the state
> > being allocated by do_numa_crng_init()!
>
> crng_node_pool just uses the one-time init pattern. It's nothing unusual;
> lots
> of other places in the kernel want to do one-time initialization too. It
> seems
> to be one of the more common cases where people run into the LKMM at all.
> I tried to document it in
> https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/20200717044427.68747-1-ebigg...@kernel.org/T/#u,
> but people complained it was still too complicated.
Well, submitting that patch certainly did get a discussion going!
I am not sold on using one-time init as an example in recipes.txt.
But I don't see any of your implementations as being too complex for
the kernel, at least assuming that your more complex examples really
are justified by real performance data. Lacking such data, you should
of course keep it simple.
> I hope that people can at least reach some general recommendation about
> READ_ONCE() vs. smp_load_acquire(), so that every kernel developer doesn't
> have
> to understand the detailed difference, and so that we don't need to have a
> long
> discussion (potentially requiring LWN coverage) about every patch.
I am sorry, but I don't expect that kind of general recommendation
any more than I expect the kernel to standardize on one particular
type of binary tree.
The best that I can do is to say that the more users a given artifact has,
the more worthwhile it is to invest in small increments of performance.
And scalability. And usability. And ...
> > Use the simplest thing that gets the job done. Which in the Linux kernel
> > often won't be all that simple, but life is like that sometimes.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > [1] It used to be that READ_ONCE() did -not- suffice on DEC Alpha,
> > but this has thankfully changed, so that lockless_dereference()
> > is no more.
>
> Let me give an example using spinlock_t, since that's used in crng_node_pool.
> However, it could be any other data structure too; this is *just an example*.
> And it doesn't matter if the implementation is currently different; the point
> is
> that it's an *implementation*.
>
> The allocation side uses spin_lock_init(), while the read side uses
> spin_lock().
> Let's say that some debugging feature is enabled where spin locks use some
> global debugging information (say, a list of all locks) that gets allocated
> the
> first time a spin lock is initialized:
>
> static struct spin_lock_debug_info *debug_info;
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(debug_info_alloc_mutex);
>
> void spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPIN_LOCKS
> mutex_lock(&debug_info_alloc_mutex);
> if (!debug_info)
> debug_info = alloc_debug_info();
> add_lock(debug_info, lock);
> mutex_unlock(&debug_info_alloc_mutex);
> #endif
> real_spin_lock_init(lock);
> }
>
> void spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPIN_LOCKS
> debug_info->...; # use the debug info
> #endif
> real_spin_lock(lock);
> }
>
> In that case, readers would have a control dependency between the condition of
> the data struct containing the spinlock_t being non-NULL, and the dereference
> of
> debug_info by spin_lock(). So anyone "receiving" a data structure containing
> a
> spinlock_t would need to use smp_load_acquire(), not READ_ONCE().
Sorry, no.
The user had jolly well better make -very- sure that the call to
spin_lock_init() is ordered before any call to spin_lock(). Running
spin_lock() concurrently with spin_lock_init() will bring you nothing
but sorrow, even without that debug_info control-dependency issue.
In the various one-time init examples, the required ordering would be
correctly supplied if spin_lock_init() was invoked by init_foo() or
alloc_foo(), depending on the example, and used only after a successful
return from init_foo_if_needed(). None of these examples rely on control
dependencies.
> Point is, whether it's safe to use READ_ONCE() with a data structure or not is
> an implementation detail, not an API guarantee.
Again, no. It is perfectly possible to design APIs that hide
the ordering. In that case, the use of READ_ONCE() is an internal
design decision for the guy writing the code that implements the API.
For example, RCU calls schedule() and doesn't need to know or care that
some portions of the scheduler rely on control dependencies (or at least
they did last I looked).
Of course, it is also possible to hack together an API that exposes strange
ordering details, and sometimes it is even necessary. But even then the
ordering needs to be documented.
Thanx, Paul
