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;
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     boqun.feng@gmail.com, frederic@kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, neeraju@codeaurora.org,
        urezki@gmail.com, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
References: <20210610165710.GT4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu/doc: Add a quick quiz to explain further why we need
 smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
From:   Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <41a783b3-db66-a30d-4ff1-d1fa77135db0@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:28:10 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210610165710.GT4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:57:10 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 05:50:29PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> Add some missing critical pieces of explanation to understand the need
>> for full memory barriers throughout the whole grace period state machine,
>> thanks to Paul's explanations.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
>> Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
>> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> 
> Nice!!!  And not bad wording either, though I still could not resist the
> urge to wordsmith further.  Plus I combined your two examples, in order to
> provide a trivial example use of the polling interfaces, if nothing else.
> 
> Please let me know if I messed anything up.

Hi Paul,

See minor tweaks below to satisfy sphinx.

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> commit f21b8fbdf9a59553da825265e92cedb639b4ba3c
> Author: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> Date:   Thu Jun 10 17:50:29 2021 +0200
> 
>     rcu/doc: Add a quick quiz to explain further why we need smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
>     
>     Add some missing critical pieces of explanation to understand the need
>     for full memory barriers throughout the whole grace period state machine,
>     thanks to Paul's explanations.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
>     Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
>     Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
>     Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
>     Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
> index 11cdab037bff..3cd5cb4d86e5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
> @@ -112,6 +112,35 @@ on PowerPC.
>  The ``smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()`` invocations prevent this
>  ``WARN_ON()`` from triggering.
>  
> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> +| **Quick Quiz**:                                                       |
> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> +| But the whole chain of rcu_node-structure locking guarantees that     |
> +| readers see all pre-grace-period accesses from the updater and        |
> +| also guarantees that the updater to see all post-grace-period         |
> +| accesses from the readers.  So why do we need all of those calls      |
> +| to smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()?                                       |
> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> +| **Answer**:                                                           |
> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> +| Because we must provide ordering for RCU's polling grace-period       |
> +| primitives, for example, get_state_synchronize_rcu() and              |
> +| poll_state_synchronize_rcu().  For example:                           |
> +|                                                                       |
> +| CPU 0                                     CPU 1                       |
> +| ----                                      ----                        |
> +| WRITE_ONCE(X, 1)                          WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1)            |
> +| g = get_state_synchronize_rcu()           smp_mb()                    |
> +| while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(g))    r1 = READ_ONCE(X)           |
> +|         continue;                                                     |

This indent causes warnings from sphinx:

Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst:135: WARNING: Unexpected indentation.
Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst:137: WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent

> +| r0 = READ_ONCE(Y)                                                     |
> +|                                                                       |
> +| RCU guarantees that that the outcome r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 will not      |
> +| happen, even if CPU 1 is in an RCU extended quiescent state (idle     |
> +| or offline) and thus won't interact directly with the RCU core        |
> +| processing at all.                                                    |
> ++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> +
>  This approach must be extended to include idle CPUs, which need
>  RCU's grace-period memory ordering guarantee to extend to any
>  RCU read-side critical sections preceding and following the current

The code block in the answer can be fixed as follows:

++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| **Answer**:                                                           |
++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
+| Because we must provide ordering for RCU's polling grace-period       |
+| primitives, for example, get_state_synchronize_rcu() and              |
+| poll_state_synchronize_rcu().  For example::                          |
+|                                                                       |
+|  CPU 0                                     CPU 1                      |
+|  ----                                      ----                       |
+|  WRITE_ONCE(X, 1)                          WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1)           |
+|  g = get_state_synchronize_rcu()           smp_mb()                   |
+|  while (!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(g))    r1 = READ_ONCE(X)          |
+|          continue;                                                    |
+|  r0 = READ_ONCE(Y)                                                    |
+|                                                                       |
+| RCU guarantees that that the outcome r0 == 0 && r1 == 0 will not      |
+| happen, even if CPU 1 is in an RCU extended quiescent state (idle     |
+| or offline) and thus won't interact directly with the RCU core        |
+| processing at all.                                                    |
++-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Hint: Use of "::" and indented code block.
 
       Thanks, Akira