Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932135Ab3J1Qev (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:34:51 -0400 Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:33890 "EHLO e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932076Ab3J1Qet (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:34:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:34:18 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Victor Kaplansky , Frederic Weisbecker , Anton Blanchard , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , LKML , Linux PPC dev , Mathieu Desnoyers , Michael Ellerman , Michael Neuling , Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc Message-ID: <20131028163418.GD4126@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <12083.1382486094@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20131023141948.GB3566@localhost.localdomain> <20131025173749.GG19466@laptop.lan>

<20131028132634.GO19466@laptop.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131028132634.GO19466@laptop.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13102816-7164-0000-0000-000002CFDB5B Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 7418 Lines: 177 On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:26:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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) Given that both of the kernel's subsequent operations are stores/writes, doesn't (A) need to be smp_mb()? Thanx, Paul > + * 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/