[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12631.1383081828@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:23:48 +1100
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@...ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:21:31AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Victor Kaplansky wrote:
> > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote on 10/28/2013 10:17:35 PM:
> > >
> > > > mb(); // XXXXXXXX: do we really need it? I think yes.
> > >
> > > Oh, it is hard to argue with feelings. Also, it is easy to be on
> > > conservative side and put the barrier here just in case.
> >
> > I'll make it a full mb for now and too am curious to see the end of this
> > discussion explaining things ;-)
>
> That is, I've now got this queued:
Can we also CC stable@...nel.org? This has been around for a while.
Mikey
>
> ---
> Subject: perf: Fix perf ring buffer memory ordering
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Mon Oct 28 13:55:29 CET 2013
>
> The PPC64 people noticed a missing memory barrier and crufty old
> comments in the perf ring buffer code. So update all the comments and
> add the missing barrier.
>
> When the architecture implements local_t using atomic_long_t there
> will be double barriers issued; but short of introducing more
> conditional barrier primitives this is the best we can do.
>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
> Cc: michael@...erman.id.au
> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: anton@...ba.org
> Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org
> Reported-by: Victor Kaplansky <victork@...ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Victor Kaplansky <victork@...ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20131025173749.GG19466@laptop.lan
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h | 12 +++++++-----
> kernel/events/ring_buffer.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -479,13 +479,15 @@ struct perf_event_mmap_page {
> /*
> * Control data for the mmap() data buffer.
> *
> - * User-space reading the @data_head value should issue an rmb(), on
> - * SMP capable platforms, after reading this value -- see
> - * perf_event_wakeup().
> + * User-space reading the @data_head value should issue an smp_rmb(),
> + * after reading this value.
> *
> * When the mapping is PROT_WRITE the @data_tail value should be
> - * written by userspace to reflect the last read data. In this case
> - * the kernel will not over-write unread data.
> + * written by userspace to reflect the last read data, after issueing
> + * an smp_mb() to separate the data read from the ->data_tail store.
> + * In this case the kernel will not over-write unread data.
> + *
> + * See perf_output_put_handle() for the data ordering.
> */
> __u64 data_head; /* head in the data section */
> __u64 data_tail; /* user-space written tail */
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -87,10 +87,31 @@ static void perf_output_put_handle(struc
> goto out;
>
> /*
> - * Publish the known good head. Rely on the full barrier implied
> - * by atomic_dec_and_test() order the rb->head read and this
> - * write.
> + * Since the mmap() consumer (userspace) can run on a different CPU:
> + *
> + * kernel user
> + *
> + * READ ->data_tail READ ->data_head
> + * smp_mb() (A) smp_rmb() (C)
> + * WRITE $data READ $data
> + * smp_wmb() (B) smp_mb() (D)
> + * STORE ->data_head WRITE ->data_tail
> + *
> + * Where A pairs with D, and B pairs with C.
> + *
> + * I don't think A needs to be a full barrier because we won't in fact
> + * write data until we see the store from userspace. So we simply don't
> + * issue the data WRITE until we observe it. Be conservative for now.
> + *
> + * OTOH, D needs to be a full barrier since it separates the data READ
> + * from the tail WRITE.
> + *
> + * For B a WMB is sufficient since it separates two WRITEs, and for C
> + * an RMB is sufficient since it separates two READs.
> + *
> + * See perf_output_begin().
> */
> + smp_wmb();
> rb->user_page->data_head = head;
>
> /*
> @@ -154,9 +175,11 @@ int perf_output_begin(struct perf_output
> * Userspace could choose to issue a mb() before updating the
> * tail pointer. So that all reads will be completed before the
> * write is issued.
> + *
> + * See perf_output_put_handle().
> */
> tail = ACCESS_ONCE(rb->user_page->data_tail);
> - smp_rmb();
> + smp_mb();
> offset = head = local_read(&rb->head);
> head += size;
> if (unlikely(!perf_output_space(rb, tail, offset, head)))
>
--
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