Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 11:07:33 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Elver Marco <elver@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2] locking/osq_lock: annotate a data race in
 osq_lock
Message-ID: <20200511180733.GA2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200509161217.GN2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <45D9EEEB-D887-485D-9045-417A7F2C6A1A@lca.pw>
 <20200509213654.GO2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200511155812.GB22270@willie-the-truck>
 <20200511164319.GV2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200511165216.GA23081@willie-the-truck>
 <20200511172918.GW2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200511173412.GC23081@willie-the-truck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200511173412.GC23081@willie-the-truck>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 06:34:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:29:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:52:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:43:19AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 04:58:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 02:36:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > > > > index 1f77349..1de006e 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
> > > > > > @@ -154,7 +154,11 @@ bool osq_lock(struct optimistic_spin_queue *lock)
> > > > > >  	 */
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  	for (;;) {
> > > > > > -		if (prev->next == node &&
> > > > > > +		/*
> > > > > > +		 * cpu_relax() below implies a compiler barrier which would
> > > > > > +		 * prevent this comparison being optimized away.
> > > > > > +		 */
> > > > > > +		if (data_race(prev->next) == node &&
> > > > > >  		    cmpxchg(&prev->next, node, NULL) == node)
> > > > > >  			break;
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm fine with the data_race() placement, but I don't find the comment
> > > > > very helpful. We assign the result of a READ_ONCE() to 'prev' in the
> > > > > loop, so I don't think that the cpu_relax() is really relevant.
> > > > 
> > > > Suppose that the compiler loaded a value that was not equal to "node".
> > > > In that case, the cmpxchg() won't happen, so something else must force
> > > > the compiler to do the reload in order to avoid an infinite loop, right?
> > > > Or am I missing something here?
> > > 
> > > Then we just go round the loop and reload prev:
> > > 
> > > 	prev = READ_ONCE(node->prev);
> > > 
> > > which should be enough to stop the compiler, no?
> > 
> > Yes, that would also work.  Either have the cpu_relax() or a barrier()
> > or whatever on the one hand, or, as you say, turn the data_race() into
> > a READ_ONCE().  I personally prefer the READ_ONCE() myself, unless that
> > would undesirably suppress other KCSAN warnings.
> 
> No, I mean here is the code after this patch is applied:
> 
> 	for (;;) {
> 		if (data_race(prev->next) == node &&
> 		    cmpxchg(&prev->next, node, NULL) == node)
> 			break;
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * We can only fail the cmpxchg() racing against an unlock(),
> 		 * in which case we should observe @node->locked becomming
> 		 * true.
> 		 */
> 		if (smp_load_acquire(&node->locked))
> 			return true;
> 
> 		cpu_relax();
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * Or we race against a concurrent unqueue()'s step-B, in which
> 		 * case its step-C will write us a new @node->prev pointer.
> 		 */
> 		prev = READ_ONCE(node->prev);
> 	}
> 
> I'm saying that this READ_ONCE at the end of the loop should be sufficient
> to stop the compiler making value assumptions about prev->next. Do you
> agree?

Good point, and I would certainly hope so!

							Thanx, Paul