Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-116454-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,  Andrew Morton
 <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,  David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
  Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,  Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>,  Yu
 Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,  Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,  Michal Hocko
 <mhocko@suse.com>,  Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,  Barry Song
 <21cnbao@gmail.com>,  Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>,  <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
  <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Can you help us on memory barrier usage? (was Re: [PATCH v4
 4/6] mm: swap: Allow storage of all mTHP orders)
In-Reply-To: <44b2cf99-7d87-42ac-8446-fe0822c89c97@arm.com> (Ryan Roberts's
	message of "Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:23:44 +0000")
References: <20240311150058.1122862-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
	<20240311150058.1122862-5-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
	<87jzm751n3.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<d6ac1097-2ca3-4e6d-902d-1b942cacf0fb@arm.com>
	<8734skryev.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<b22a222b-7fd8-4648-84a7-21d35f529f27@arm.com>
	<87r0g3q9cz.fsf_-_@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<44b2cf99-7d87-42ac-8446-fe0822c89c97@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:20:29 +0800
Message-ID: <87msqnov42.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii

Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:

> On 22/03/2024 02:38, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Paul,
>> 
>> Can you help us on WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() usage as follows?
>> For some example kernel code as follows,
>> 
>> "
>> unsigned char x[16];
>> 
>> void writer(void)
>> {
>>         memset(x, 1, sizeof(x));
>>         /* To make memset() take effect ASAP */
>>         barrier();
>> }
>> 
>> unsigned char reader(int n)
>> {
>>         return READ_ONCE(x[n]);
>> }
>> "
>> 
>> where, writer() and reader() may be called on 2 CPUs without any lock.
>
> For the situation we are discussing, writer() is always called with a spin lock
> held. So spin_unlock() will act as the barrier in this case; that's my argument
> for not needing the explicit barrier(), anyway. Happy to be told I'm wrong.

Yes.  spin_unlock() is a barrier too.  There are some operations between
writer() and spin_unlock(), so I want to check whether it make any sense
to add a barrier earlier.

>> It's acceptable for reader() to read the written value a little later.
>> Our questions are,
>> 
>> 1. because it's impossible for accessing "unsigned char" to cause
>> tearing.  So, WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() isn't necessary for
>> correctness, right?
>> 
>> 2. we use barrier() and READ_ONCE() in writer() and reader(), because we
>> want to make writing take effect ASAP.  Is it a good practice?  Or it's
>> a micro-optimization that should be avoided?

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying