Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:29:44 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" 
        <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, keescook@chromium.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] sched/topology: Annonate RCU pointers properly
Message-ID: <20190221152944.GS32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190221054942.132388-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190221054942.132388-5-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190221091944.GY32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190221151057.GA19213@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190221151057.GA19213@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:10:57AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thanks for taking a look.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:49:41AM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > 
> > > Also replace rcu_assign_pointer call on rq->sd with WRITE_ONCE. This
> > > should be sufficient for the rq->sd initialization.
> > 
> > > @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *sd, struct root_domain *rd, int cpu)
> > >  
> > >  	rq_attach_root(rq, rd);
> > >  	tmp = rq->sd;
> > > -	rcu_assign_pointer(rq->sd, sd);
> > > +	WRITE_ONCE(rq->sd, sd);
> > >  	dirty_sched_domain_sysctl(cpu);
> > >  	destroy_sched_domains(tmp);
> > 
> > Where did the RELEASE barrier go?
> > 
> > That was a publish operation, now it is not.
> 
> Funny thing is, initially I had written this patch with smp_store_release()
> instead of WRITE_ONCE, but checkpatch complaints with that since it needs a
> comment on top of it, and I wasn't sure if RELEASE barrier was the intent of
> using rcu_assign_pointer (all the more reason to replace it with something
> more explicit).
> 
> I will replace it with the following and resubmit it then:
> 
> /* Release barrier */
> smp_store_release(&rq->sd, sd);
> 
> Or do we want to just drop the "Release barrier" comment and live with the
> checkpatch warning?

How about we keep using rcu_assign_pointer(), the whole sched domain
tree is under rcu; peruse that destroy_sched_domains() function for
instance.

Also check how for_each_domain() uses rcu_dereference().