linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 6/7] nohz_full: Add full-system-idle state machine

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: <20130719002408.GB21367@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:24:08 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	darren@...art.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC nohz_full 6/7] nohz_full: Add full-system-idle state
 machine

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:46:21AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:47:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 04:24:51PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 08:39:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 03:33:01AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > So it's like:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     CPU 0                                              CPU 1
> > > > > 
> > > > >     read I                                             write I
> > > > >     smp_mb()                                           smp_mb()
> > > > >     cmpxchg S                                          read S
> > > > > 
> > > > > I still can't find what guarantees we don't read a value in CPU 1 that is way below
> > > > > what we want.
> > > > 
> > > > One key point is that there is a second cycle from LONG to FULL.
> > > > 
> > > > (Not saying that there is not a bug -- there might well be.  In fact,
> > > > I am starting to think that I need to do another Promela model...
> > > 
> > > Now I'm very confused :)
> > 
> > To quote a Nobel Laureate who presented at an ISEF here in Portland some
> > years back, "Confusion is the most productive state of mind."  ;-)
> 
> Then I must be a very productive guy!

So that is your secret!  ;-)

> > > I'm far from being a specialist on these matters but I would really love to
> > > understand this patchset. Is there any documentation somewhere I can read
> > > that could help, something about cycles of committed memory or something?
> > 
> > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt should suffice for this.  If you want
> > more rigor, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppc-supplemental/test7.pdf
> > 
> > But memory-barrier pairing suffices here.  Here is case 2 from my
> > earlier email in more detail.  The comments with capital letters
> > mark important memory barriers, some of which are buried in atomic
> > operations.
> > 
> > 1. Some CPU coming out of idle:
> > 
> > o	rcu_sysidle_exit():
> > 
> > 	smp_mb__before_atomic_inc();
> > 	atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks_idle);
> > 	smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); /* A */
> > 
> > o	rcu_sysidle_force_exit():
> > 
> > 	oldstate = ACCESS_ONCE(full_sysidle_state);
> > 
> > 2. RCU GP kthread:
> > 
> > o	rcu_sysidle():
> > 
> > 	cmpxchg(&full_sysidle_state, RCU_SYSIDLE_SHORT, RCU_SYSIDLE_LONG);
> > 		/* B */
> > 
> > o	rcu_sysidle_check_cpu():
> > 
> > 	cur = atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks_idle);
> > 
> > Memory barrier A pairs with memory barrier B, so that if #1's load
> > from full_sysidle_state sees RCU_SYSIDLE_SHORT, we know that #1's
> > atomic_inc() must be visible to #2's atomic_read().  This will cause #2
> > to recognize that the CPU came out of idle, which will in turn cause it
> > to invoke rcu_sysidle_cancel() instead of rcu_sysidle(), resulting in
> > full_sysidle_state being set to RCU_SYSIDLE_NOT.
> 
> Ok I get it for that direction.
> Now imagine CPU 0 is the RCU GP kthread (#2) and CPU 1 is idle and stays
> so.
> 
> CPU 0 then rounds and see that all CPUs are idle, until it finally sets
> up RCU_SYSIDLE_SHORT_FULL and finally goes to sleep.
> 
> Then CPU 1 wakes up. It really has to see a value above RCU_SYSIDLE_SHORT
> otherwise it won't do the cmpxchg and see the FULL_NOTED that makes it send
> the IPI.
> 
> What provides the guarantee that CPU 1 sees a value above RCU_SYSIDLE_SHORT?
> Not on the cmpxchg but when it first dereference with ACCESS_ONCE.

The trick is that CPU 0 will have scanned, moved to RCU_SYSIDLE_SHORT,
scanned, moved to RCU_SYSIDLE_LONG, then scanned again before moving
to RCU_SYSIDLE_FULL.  Given CPU 1 has been idle all this time, CPU 0
will have read its ->dynticks_idle counter on each scan and seen it
having an even value.  When CPU 1 comes out of idle, it will atomically
increment its ->dyntick_idle(), which will happen after CPU 0's read of
->dyntick_idle() during its last scan.

Because of the memory-barrier pairing above, this means that CPU
1's read from full_sysidle_state must follow the cmpxchg() that
set full_sysidle_state to RCU_SYSIDLE_LONG (though not necessarily
the two later cmpxchg()s that set it to RCU_SYSIDLE_FULL and
RCU_SYSIDLE_FULL_NOTED).  But because RCU_SYSIDLE_LONG is greater than
RCU_SYSIDLE_SHORT, CPU 1 will take action to end the idle period.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/