Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755750Ab0HPVl2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:41:28 -0400
Received: from tomts43.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.110]:35571 "EHLO
	tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753569Ab0HPVl1 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:41:27 -0400
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAE5JaUxGGN19/2dsb2JhbACgSnLBD4U7BA
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:41:23 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
        dhowells@redhat.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/10] rcu: Add a TINY_PREEMPT_RCU
Message-ID: <20100816214123.GA15663@Krystal>
References: <20100809221447.GA24358@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1281392111-25060-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100816150737.GB8320@Krystal> <20100816183355.GH2388@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100816191947.GA970@Krystal> <20100816213200.GK2388@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100816213200.GK2388@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
X-Editor: vi
X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080
X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.27.31-grsec (i686)
X-Uptime: 17:36:43 up 131 days,  7:28,  4 users,  load average: 0.03, 0.02,
	0.00
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3633
Lines: 97

* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:19:47PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:07:37AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Tiny-preemptible RCU implementation for rcu_read_unlock().
> > > > > + * Decrement ->rcu_read_lock_nesting.  If the result is zero (outermost
> > > > > + * rcu_read_unlock()) and ->rcu_read_unlock_special is non-zero, then
> > > > > + * invoke rcu_read_unlock_special() to clean up after a context switch
> > > > > + * in an RCU read-side critical section and other special cases.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutiny.c */
> > > > > +	if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > > > > +	    unlikely(t->rcu_read_unlock_special))
> > > 
> > > First, thank you for looking this over!!!
> > > 
> > > > Hrm I think we discussed this in a past life, but would the following
> > > > sequence be possible and correct ?
> > > > 
> > > > CPU 0
> > > > 
> > > > read t->rcu_read_unlock_special
> > > >   interrupt comes in, preempts. sets t->rcu_read_unlock_special
> > > >   <preempted>
> > > >   <scheduled back>
> > > >   iret
> > > > decrement and read t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> > > > test both old "special" value (which we have locally on the stack) and
> > > > detect that rcu_read_lock_nesting is 0.
> > > > 
> > > > We actually missed a reschedule.
> > > > 
> > > > I think we might need a barrier() between the t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> > > > and t->rcu_read_unlock_special reads.
> > > 
> > > You are correct -- I got too aggressive in eliminating synchronization.
> > > 
> > > Good catch!!!
> > > 
> > > I added an ACCESS_ONCE() to the second term of the "if" condition so
> > > that it now reads:
> > > 
> > > 	if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > > 	    unlikely((ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > > 
> > > This prevents the compiler from reordering because the ACCESS_ONCE()
> > > prohibits accessing t->rcu_read_unlock_special unless the value of
> > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting is known to be zero.
> > 
> > Hrm, --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting does not have any globally visible
> > side-effect, so the compiler is free to reorder the memory access across
> > the rcu_read_unlock_special access. I think we need the ACCESS_ONCE()
> > around the t->rcu_read_lock_nesting access too.
> 
> Indeed, it is free to reorder that access.  This has the effect of
> extending the scope of the RCU read-side critical section, which is
> harmless as long as it doesn't pull a lock or some such into it.
> 

So what happens if we get:

CPU 0

read t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
check if equals to 1
read t->rcu_read_unlock_special
  interrupt comes in, preempts. sets t->rcu_read_unlock_special
  <preempted>
  <scheduled back>
  iret
decrement t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
test rcu_read_unlock_special value (read prior to interrupt)
 -> fails to notice the preemption that came in after the
    rcu_read_unlock_special read.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/