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]

Message-ID: <20090216220214.GA10093@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:02:14 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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 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.

> 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.

Oleg.

--
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/