| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:28:22 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Remove misleading examples of the
barriers in wake_*()
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:14:01AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Two examples for barriers in wake_up() and co. in memory-barriers.txt
> are misleading, along with their explanations:
>
> 1. The example which wanted to explain the write barrier in
> wake_up() and co. [spotted by Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>]
>
> 2. The example which wanted to explain that the write barriers in
> wake_up() and co. only exist iff a wakeup actually occurs.
>
> For example #1, according to Oleg Nesterov:
>
> >
> > The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared
> >
> > is not actually right. This is misleading. What is really important is that
> > we have a barrier before we _read_ the task state. And again, again, the
> > fact that we actually have the write barrier is just the implementation
> > detail.
> >
>
> And the example #2 is actually an example which could explain that the
> barriers in wait_event() and co. only exist iff a sleep actually occurs.
>
> Further more, these barriers are only used for the correctness of
> sleeping and waking up, i.e. they exist only to guarantee the ordering
> of memory accesses to the task states and the global variables
> indicating an event. Users can't rely on them for other things, so
> memory-barriers.txt had better to call this out and remove the
> misleading examples.
>
> This patch removes the misleading examples along with their
> explanations, calls it out that those implied barriers are only for
> sleep and wakeup related variables and adds a new example to explain the
> implied barrier in wake_up() and co.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
At this point, I would favor replacing that entire section with a short
paragraph describing what guarantees are provided, perhaps with an example
showing what added barriers/locks/whatever are required. My feeling is
that we should avoid saying too much about the internals of wait_event()
and wake_up().
Or am I missing something?
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 42 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index eafa6a5..07de72f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1948,6 +1948,10 @@ these appear to happen in the right order, the primitives to begin the process
> of going to sleep, and the primitives to initiate a wake up imply certain
> barriers.
>
> +[!] Note that these implied barriers are only for the correctness of sleep and
> +wake-up. So don't rely on these barriers for things that are neither the task
> +states nor the global variables indicating the events.
> +
> Firstly, the sleeper normally follows something like this sequence of events:
>
> for (;;) {
> @@ -1997,32 +2001,22 @@ or:
> event_indicated = 1;
> wake_up_process(event_daemon);
>
> -A write memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they wake
> -something up. The barrier occurs before the task state is cleared, and so sits
> -between the STORE to indicate the event and the STORE to set TASK_RUNNING:
> -
> - CPU 1 CPU 2
> - =============================== ===============================
> - set_current_state(); STORE event_indicated
> - smp_store_mb(); wake_up();
> - STORE current->state <write barrier>
> - <general barrier> STORE current->state
> - LOAD event_indicated
> +A memory barrier is implied by wake_up() and co. if and only if they wake
> +something up. The memory barrier here is not necessary to be a general barrier,
> +it only needs to guarantee a STORE preceding this barrier can never be
> +reordered after a LOAD following this barrier(i.e. a STORE-LOAD barrier). This
> +barrier guarantees that the event has been indicated before the waker read the
> +wakee's task state:
>
> -To repeat, this write memory barrier is present if and only if something
> -is actually awakened. To see this, consider the following sequence of
> -events, where X and Y are both initially zero:
> + CPU 1
> + ===============================
> + STORE event_indicated;
> + wake_up_process(wakee);
> + <STORE-LOAD barrier>
> + LOAD wakee->state;
>
> - CPU 1 CPU 2
> - =============================== ===============================
> - X = 1; STORE event_indicated
> - smp_mb(); wake_up();
> - Y = 1; wait_event(wq, Y == 1);
> - wake_up(); load from Y sees 1, no memory barrier
> - load from X might see 0
> -
> -In contrast, if a wakeup does occur, CPU 2's load from X would be guaranteed
> -to see 1.
> +This barrier pairs with the general barrier implied by set_current_state() on
> +the sleeper side.
>
> The available waker functions include:
>
> --
> 2.5.1
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists