linux-kernel - Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single ipi fallback for smp_call_function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:24:57 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove
 single ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 23:02 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:32 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > I was about to write a response, but found it to be a justification for
> > > > the read_barrier_depends() at the end of the loop.
> > >
> > > I forgot to mention I don't understand the read_barrier_depends() at the
> > > end of the loop as well ;)
> >
> > Suppose cpu0 adds to csd to cpu1:
> >
> >
> >  cpu0:                 cpu1:
> >
> > add entry1
> > mb();
> > send ipi
> >                       run ipi handler
> >                       read_barrier_depends()
> >                       while (!list_empty())    [A]
> >                         do foo
> >
> > add entry2
> > mb();
> > [no ipi -- we still observe entry1]
> >
> >                         remove foo
> >                         read_barrier_depends()
> >                       while (!list_empty())      [B]
> 
> Still can't understand.
> 
> cpu1 (generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt) does
> list_replace_init(q->lock), this lock is also taken by
> generic_exec_single().
> 
> Either cpu1 sees entry2 on list, or cpu0 sees list_empty()
> and sends ipi.

cpu0:		cpu1:

spin_lock_irqsave(&dst->lock, flags);
ipi = list_empty(&dst->list);
list_add_tail(&data->list, &dst->list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dst->lock, flags);

ipi ----->

		while (!list_empty(&q->list)) {
                	unsigned int data_flags;

                	spin_lock(&q->lock);
               		list_replace_init(&q->list, &list);
	                spin_unlock(&q->lock);


Strictly speaking the unlock() is semi-permeable, allowing the read of
q->list to enter the critical section, allowing us to observe an empty
list, never getting to q->lock on cpu1.

The mb()/rbd() pair seems to avoid that.

> > The read_barrier_depends() matches the mb() on the other cpu, without
> > which the 'new' entry might not be observed.
> 
> And that mb() looks unneeded too. Again, because
> generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt() takes call_single_queue.lock
> before it uses "data".
> 
> 
> Even if I missed something (very possible), then I can't understand
> why we need rmb() only on alpha.

Because only alpha is insane enough to do speculative reads? Dunno
really :-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/