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;
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:38:35 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rcu/nocb: Recheck lazy callbacks under the
 ->nocb_lock from shrinker
Message-ID: <8b93312e-1f66-4558-9add-b7ce1c1d2fc5@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20230329160203.191380-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20230329160203.191380-4-frederic@kernel.org>
 <8df51703-1ee4-4b7b-9e05-90b3650e8ee7@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZCSsJW67BnGWzNrI@lothringen>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZCSsJW67BnGWzNrI@lothringen>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:22:45PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 01:54:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 06:02:02PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > The ->lazy_len is only checked locklessly. Recheck again under the
> > > ->nocb_lock to avoid spending more time on flushing/waking if not
> > > necessary. The ->lazy_len can still increment concurrently (from 1 to
> > > infinity) but under the ->nocb_lock we at least know for sure if there
> > > are lazy callbacks at all (->lazy_len > 0).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 16 ++++++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > > index c321fce2af8e..dfa9c10d6727 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > > @@ -1358,12 +1358,20 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > >  		if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
> > >  			continue;
> > >  
> > > +		if (!READ_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len))
> > > +			continue;
> > 
> > Do you depend on the ordering of the above read of ->lazy_len against
> > anything in the following, aside from the re-read of ->lazy_len?  (Same
> > variable, both READ_ONCE() or stronger, so you do get that ordering.)
> > 
> > If you do need that ordering, the above READ_ONCE() needs to instead
> > be smp_load_acquire() or similar.  If you don't need that ordering,
> > what you have is good.
> 
> No ordering dependency intended here. The early ->lazy_len read is really just
> an optimization here to avoid locking if it *seems* there is nothing to do with
> this rdp. But what follows doesn't depend on that read.

Full steam ahead with READ_ONCE(), then!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul