From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] rcu: Remove full ordering on second EQS snapshot
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 19:32:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xhsmhikzfgev6.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240515125332.9306-2-frederic@kernel.org>
On 15/05/24 14:53, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> When the grace period kthread checks the extended quiescent state
> counter of a CPU, full ordering is necessary to ensure that either:
>
> * If the GP kthread observes the remote target in an extended quiescent
> state, then that target must observe all accesses prior to the current
> grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once
> it exits that extended quiescent state. Also the GP kthread must
> observe all accesses performed by the target prior it entering in
> EQS.
>
> or:
>
> * If the GP kthread observes the remote target NOT in an extended
> quiescent state, then the target further entering in an extended
> quiescent state must observe all accesses prior to the current
> grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once
> it enters that extended quiescent state. Also the GP kthread later
> observing that EQS must also observe all accesses performed by the
> target prior it entering in EQS.
>
> This ordering is explicitly performed both on the first EQS snapshot
> and on the second one as well through the combination of a preceding
> full barrier followed by an acquire read. However the second snapshot's
> full memory barrier is redundant and not needed to enforce the above
> guarantees:
>
> GP kthread Remote target
> ---- -----
> // Access prior GP
> WRITE_ONCE(A, 1)
> // first snapshot
> smp_mb()
> x = smp_load_acquire(EQS)
> // Access prior GP
> WRITE_ONCE(B, 1)
> // EQS enter
> // implied full barrier by atomic_add_return()
> atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICKS_IDX, EQS)
> // implied full barrier by atomic_add_return()
> READ_ONCE(A)
> // second snapshot
> y = smp_load_acquire(EQS)
> z = READ_ONCE(B)
>
> If the GP kthread above fails to observe the remote target in EQS
> (x not in EQS), the remote target will observe A == 1 after further
> entering in EQS. Then the second snapshot taken by the GP kthread only
> need to be an acquire read in order to observe z == 1.
>
> Therefore remove the needless full memory barrier on second snapshot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Still looking at the rest, but at least so far I'm convinced this one makes
sense.
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 5e6828132007..58415cdc54f8 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ static bool rcu_dynticks_in_eqs(int snap)
> */
> static bool rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since(struct rcu_data *rdp, int snap)
> {
> - return snap != rcu_dynticks_snap(rdp->cpu);
> + return snap != ct_dynticks_cpu_acquire(rdp->cpu);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.44.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-15 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-15 12:53 [PATCH 0/6] rcu: Remove several redundant memory barriers Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-15 12:53 ` [PATCH 1/6] rcu: Remove full ordering on second EQS snapshot Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-15 17:32 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2024-05-15 12:53 ` [PATCH 2/6] rcu: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first " Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-16 15:31 ` Valentin Schneider
2024-05-16 16:08 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-16 17:08 ` Valentin Schneider
2024-05-17 7:29 ` Andrea Parri
2024-05-17 11:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-17 16:27 ` Andrea Parri
2024-05-15 12:53 ` [PATCH 3/6] rcu/exp: " Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-15 12:53 ` [PATCH 4/6] rcu: Remove full memory barrier on boot time eqs sanity check Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-16 17:09 ` Valentin Schneider
2024-05-15 12:53 ` [PATCH 5/6] rcu: Remove full memory barrier on RCU stall printout Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-16 17:09 ` Valentin Schneider
2024-05-15 12:53 ` [PATCH 6/6] rcu/exp: Remove redundant full memory barrier at the end of GP Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-15 17:32 ` [PATCH 0/6] rcu: Remove several redundant memory barriers Valentin Schneider
2024-05-15 23:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=xhsmhikzfgev6.mognet@vschneid-thinkpadt14sgen2i.remote.csb \
--to=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).