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:   Fri, 15 May 2020 15:00:30 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rbtree_latch: quit searching when reaching to
 maximum depth
Message-ID: <20200515130030.GV2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200515124710.16439-1-laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200515124710.16439-1-laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:47:06PM +0000, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> lib/rbtree.c has ensured that there is not possible to
> inadvertently cause (temporary) loops in the tree structure
> as seen in program order of the modifier. But loop is still
> possible to be seen in searcher due to CPU's reordering.
> 
> for example:
> modifier				searcher
> 
> left rotate at parent
> parent->rb_right is node
> 					search to parent
> 					parent->rb_right is node
> 				     +->see node->rb_left changed
> WRITE_ONCE(parent->rb_right, tmp);-+ |  node->rb_left is parennt
> no smp_wmb(), some arch can        | |
> reorder these two writes           | |  loop long between
> WRITE_ONCE(node->rb_left, parent);-+-+  parent and node
> 				   |
> 				   +--->finally see
> 					parent->rb_right
> 
> The long loop won't stop until the modifer's CPU flushes
> its writes. Too avoid it, we should limit the searching depth.

Cute, have you actually observed this? Did you have performance issues?

> There are no more than (1<<BITS_PER_LONG)-1 nodes in the tree.
> And the max_depth of a tree is no more than 2*lg(node_count+1),
> which is no mare than 2*BITS_PER_LONG.
> 
> So the serarch should stop when diving down up to
> 2*BITS_PER_LONG depth.

Arguably you can have a larger key space, but I think due to memory
constraints this limit still isn't wrong. But I do feel you need a
comment with that.