Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752555Ab3JBBZV (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:25:21 -0400 Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:35450 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751172Ab3JBBZS (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:25:18 -0400 Message-ID: <524B75F0.2070005@hp.com> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:25:04 -0400 From: Waiman Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Chen CC: Jason Low , Paul McKenney , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Alex Shi , Andi Kleen , Michel Lespinasse , Davidlohr Bueso , Matthew R Wilcox , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Peter Hurley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file References: <1380147049.3467.67.camel@schen9-DESK> <20130927152953.GA4464@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1380310733.3467.118.camel@schen9-DESK> <20130927203858.GB9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1380322005.3467.186.camel@schen9-DESK> <20130927230137.GE9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130928021947.GF9093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52499E13.8050109@hp.com> <1380557440.14213.6.camel@j-VirtualBox> <5249A8A4.9060400@hp.com> <1380646092.11046.6.camel@schen9-DESK> <524B2A01.4080403@hp.com> <1380662188.11046.37.camel@schen9-DESK> In-Reply-To: <1380662188.11046.37.camel@schen9-DESK> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2848 Lines: 81 On 10/01/2013 05:16 PM, Tim Chen wrote: > On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 16:01 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >>> >>> The cpu could still be executing out of order load instruction from the >>> critical section before checking node->locked? Probably smp_mb() is >>> still needed. >>> >>> Tim >> But this is the lock function, a barrier() call should be enough to >> prevent the critical section from creeping up there. We certainly need >> some kind of memory barrier at the end of the unlock function. > I may be missing something. My understanding is that barrier only > prevents the compiler from rearranging instructions, but not for cpu out > of order execution (as in smp_mb). So cpu could read memory in the next > critical section, before node->locked is true, (i.e. unlock has been > completed). If we only have a simple barrier at end of mcs_lock, then > say the code on CPU1 is > > mcs_lock > x = 1; > ... > x = 2; > mcs_unlock > > and CPU 2 is > > mcs_lock > y = x; > ... > mcs_unlock > > We expect y to be 2 after the "y = x" assignment. But we > we may execute the code as > > CPU1 CPU2 > > x = 1; > ... y = x; ( y=1, out of order load) > x = 2 > mcs_unlock > Check node->locked==true > continue executing critical section (y=1 when we expect y=2) > > So we get y to be 1 when we expect that it should be 2. Adding smp_mb > after the node->locked check in lock code > > ACCESS_ONCE(prev->next) = node; > /* Wait until the lock holder passes the lock down */ > while (!ACCESS_ONCE(node->locked)) > arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > smp_mb(); > > should prevent this scenario. > > Thanks. > Tim If the lock and unlock functions are done right, there should be no overlap of critical section. So it is job of the lock/unlock functions to make sure that critical section code won't leak out. There should be some kind of memory barrier at the beginning of the lock function and the end of the unlock function. The critical section also likely to have branches. The CPU may speculatively execute code on the 2 branches, but one of them will be discarded once the branch condition is known. Also arch_mutex_cpu_relax() is a compiler barrier by itself. So we may not need a barrier() after all. The while statement is a branch instruction, any code after that can only be speculatively executed and cannot be committed until the branch is done. In x86, the smp_mb() function translated to a mfence instruction which cost time. That is why I try to get rid of it if it is not necessary. Regards, Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/