[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1706281123240.15338-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:31:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<priyalee.kushwaha@...el.com>, <drozdziak1@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <ldr709@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, <dcb314@...mail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 4.13
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 02:48:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So what next?
> > >
> > > One option would be to weaken the definition of spin_unlock_wait() so
> > > that it had acquire semantics but not release semantics. Alternatively,
> > > we could keep the full empty-critical-section semantics and add memory
> > > barriers to spin_unlock_wait() implementations, perhaps as shown in the
> > > patch below. I could go either way, though I do have some preference
> > > for the stronger semantics.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > I would prefer to just say
> >
> > - document that spin_unlock_wait() has acquire semantics
> >
> > - mindlessly add the smp_mb() to all users
> >
> > - let users then decide if they are ok with just acquire
> >
> > That's partly because I think we actually have *fewer* users than we
> > have implementations of spin_unlock_wait(). So adding a few smp_mb()'s
> > in the users is actually likely the smaller change.
>
> You are right about that! There are only five invocations of
> spin_unlock_wait() in the kernel, with a sixth that has since been
> converted to spin_lock() immediately followed by spin_unlock().
>
> > But it's also because then that allows people who *can* say that
> > acquire is sufficient to just use it. People who use
> > spin_unlock_wait() tend to have some odd performance reason to do so,
> > so I think allowing them to use the more light-weight memory ordering
> > if it works for them is a good idea.
> >
> > But finally, it's partly because I think "acquire" semantics are
> > actually the saner ones that we can explain the logic for much more
> > clearly.
> >
> > Basically, acquire semantics means that you are guaranteed to see any
> > changes that were done inside a previously locked region.
> >
> > Doesn't that sound like sensible semantics?
>
> It is the semantics that most implementations of spin_unlock_wait()
> provide. Of the six invocations, two of them very clearly rely
> only on the acquire semantics and two others already have the needed
> memory barriers in place. I have queued one patch to add smp_mb()
> to the remaining spin_unlock_wait() of the surviving five instances,
> and another patch to convert the spin_lock/unlock pair to smp_mb()
> followed by spin_unlock_wait().
>
> So, yes, it is a sensible set of semantics. At this point, agreeing
> -any- reasonable semantics would be good, as it would allow us to get
> locking added to the prototype Linux-kernel memory model. ;-)
>
> > Then, the argument for "smp_mb()" (before the spin_unlock_wait()) becomes:
> >
> > - I did a write that will affect any future lock takes
> >
> > - the smp_mb() now means that that write will be ordered wrt the
> > acquire that guarantees we've seen all old actions taken by a lock.
> >
> > Does those kinds of semantics make sense to people?
The problem is that adding smp_mb() before spin_unlock_wait() does not
provide release semantics, as Andrea has pointed out. ISTM that when
people want full release & acquire semantics, they should just use
"spin_lock(); spin_unlock();".
If there are any places where this would add unacceptable overhead,
maybe those places need some rethinking. For instance, perhaps we
could add a separate primitive that provides only release semantics.
(But would using the new primitive together with spin_unlock_wait
really be significantly better than lock-unlock?)
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists