Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <f4199d1f-306c-681f-8bb9-26d66ecf5121@efficios.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 22:43:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] srcu: Remove pre-flip memory barrier
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
References: <20221220140714.GB22763@lothringen>
 <CA83E649-8C79-4D39-9BFE-BBEF95968B98@joelfernandes.org>
 <20221220224459.GA25175@lothringen>
 <CAEXW_YSAv+MzZoW9RK9H3E6DAyZH+wB=4bMy5nXTOExSwgSwAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221221004957.GA29021@lothringen> <20221221005858.GA29316@lothringen>
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221221005858.GA29316@lothringen>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-12-20 19:58, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 01:49:57AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 07:15:00PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 5:45 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> Agreed about (1).
>>>
>>>> _ In (2), E pairs with the address-dependency between idx and lock_count.
>>>
>>> But that is not the only reason. If that was the only reason for (2),
>>> then there is an smp_mb() just before the next-scan post-flip before
>>> the lock counts are read.
>>
>> The post-flip barrier makes sure the new idx is visible on the next READER's
>> turn, but it doesn't protect against the fact that "READ idx then WRITE lock[idx]"
>> may appear unordered from the update side POV if there is no barrier between the
>> scan and the flip.
>>
>> If you remove the smp_mb() from the litmus test I sent, things explode.
> 
> Or rather, look at it the other way, if there is no barrier between the lock
> scan and the index flip (E), then the index flip can appear to be written before the
> lock is read. Which means you may start activating the index before you finish
> reading it (at least it appears that way from the readers pont of view).

Considering that you can have pre-existing readers from arbitrary index 
appearing anywhere in the grace period (because a reader can fetch the
index and be preempted for an arbitrary amount of time before 
incrementing the lock count), the grace period algorithm needs to deal 
with the fact that a newcoming reader can appear in a given index either 
before or after the flip.

I don't see how flipping the index before or after loading the 
unlock/lock values would break anything (except for unlikely counter 
overflow situations as previously discussed).

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com