Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756404Ab3J1N07 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:26:59 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:50504 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752050Ab3J1N06 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:26:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:26:34 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Victor Kaplansky Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Anton Blanchard , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , LKML , Linux PPC dev , Mathieu Desnoyers , Michael Ellerman , Michael Neuling , Paul McKenney , Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc Message-ID: <20131028132634.GO19466@laptop.lan> References: <12083.1382486094@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20131023141948.GB3566@localhost.localdomain> <20131025173749.GG19466@laptop.lan>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6898 Lines: 168 On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:38:29PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote: > > 2013/10/25 Peter Zijlstra : > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 03:19:51PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > I would argue for > > > > > > READ ->data_tail READ ->data_head > > > smp_rmb() (A) smp_rmb() (C) > > > WRITE $data READ $data > > > smp_wmb() (B) smp_mb() (D) > > > STORE ->data_head WRITE ->data_tail > > > > > > Where A pairs with D, and B pairs with C. > > > > > > I don't think A needs to be a full barrier because we won't in fact > > > write data until we see the store from userspace. So we simply don't > > > issue the data WRITE until we observe it. > > > > > > OTOH, D needs to be a full barrier since it separates the data READ from > > > the tail WRITE. > > > > > > For B a WMB is sufficient since it separates two WRITEs, and for C an > > > RMB is sufficient since it separates two READs. > I think you have a point :) IMO, memory barrier (A) is superfluous. > At producer side we need to ensure that "WRITE $data" is not committed > to memory before "READ ->data_tail" had seen a new value and if the > old one indicated that there is no enough space for a new entry. All > this is already guaranteed by control flow dependancy on single CPU - > writes will not be committed to the memory if read value of > "data_tail" doesn't specify enough free space in the ring buffer. > > Likewise, on consumer side, we can make use of natural data dependency and > memory ordering guarantee for single CPU and try to replace "smp_mb" by > a more light-weight "smp_rmb": > > READ ->data_tail READ ->data_head > // ... smp_rmb() (C) > WRITE $data READ $data > smp_wmb() (B) smp_rmb() (D) > READ $header_size > STORE ->data_head WRITE ->data_tail = $old_data_tail + > $header_size > > We ensure that all $data is read before "data_tail" is written by > doing "READ $header_size" after all other data is read and we rely on > natural data dependancy between "data_tail" write and "header_size" > read. I'm not entirely sure I get the $header_size trickery; need to think more on that. But yes, I did consider the other one. However, I had trouble having no pairing barrier for (D). ISTR something like Alpha being able to miss the update (for a long while) if you don't issue the RMB. Lets add Paul and Oleg to the thread; this is getting far more 'fun' that it should be ;-) For completeness; below the patch as I had queued it. --- Subject: perf: Fix perf ring buffer memory ordering From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon Oct 28 13:55:29 CET 2013 The PPC64 people noticed a missing memory barrier and crufty old comments in the perf ring buffer code. So update all the comments and add the missing barrier. When the architecture implements local_t using atomic_long_t there will be double barriers issued; but short of introducing more conditional barrier primitives this is the best we can do. Cc: anton@samba.org Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: michael@ellerman.id.au Cc: Paul McKenney Cc: Michael Neuling Cc: Frederic Weisbecker Reported-by: Victor Kaplansky Tested-by: Victor Kaplansky Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20131025173749.GG19466@laptop.lan --- include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h | 12 +++++++----- kernel/events/ring_buffer.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Index: linux-2.6/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h +++ linux-2.6/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h @@ -479,13 +479,15 @@ struct perf_event_mmap_page { /* * Control data for the mmap() data buffer. * - * User-space reading the @data_head value should issue an rmb(), on - * SMP capable platforms, after reading this value -- see - * perf_event_wakeup(). + * User-space reading the @data_head value should issue an smp_rmb(), + * after reading this value. * * When the mapping is PROT_WRITE the @data_tail value should be - * written by userspace to reflect the last read data. In this case - * the kernel will not over-write unread data. + * written by userspace to reflect the last read data, after issueing + * an smp_mb() to separate the data read from the ->data_tail store. + * In this case the kernel will not over-write unread data. + * + * See perf_output_put_handle() for the data ordering. */ __u64 data_head; /* head in the data section */ __u64 data_tail; /* user-space written tail */ Index: linux-2.6/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c +++ linux-2.6/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c @@ -87,10 +87,31 @@ static void perf_output_put_handle(struc goto out; /* - * Publish the known good head. Rely on the full barrier implied - * by atomic_dec_and_test() order the rb->head read and this - * write. + * Since the mmap() consumer (userspace) can run on a different CPU: + * + * kernel user + * + * READ ->data_tail READ ->data_head + * smp_rmb() (A) smp_rmb() (C) + * WRITE $data READ $data + * smp_wmb() (B) smp_mb() (D) + * STORE ->data_head WRITE ->data_tail + * + * Where A pairs with D, and B pairs with C. + * + * I don't think A needs to be a full barrier because we won't in fact + * write data until we see the store from userspace. So we simply don't + * issue the data WRITE until we observe it. + * + * OTOH, D needs to be a full barrier since it separates the data READ + * from the tail WRITE. + * + * For B a WMB is sufficient since it separates two WRITEs, and for C + * an RMB is sufficient since it separates two READs. + * + * See perf_output_begin(). */ + smp_wmb(); rb->user_page->data_head = head; /* @@ -154,6 +175,8 @@ int perf_output_begin(struct perf_output * Userspace could choose to issue a mb() before updating the * tail pointer. So that all reads will be completed before the * write is issued. + * + * See perf_output_put_handle(). */ tail = ACCESS_ONCE(rb->user_page->data_tail); smp_rmb(); -- 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/