Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:55:51 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>, fweisbec@...il.com,
        neeraj.iitr10@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 7/7] rcu/segcblist: Add additional comments to explain
 smp_mb()

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:26:03AM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Memory barriers are needed when updating the full length of the
> segcblist, however it is not fully clearly why one is needed before and
> after. This patch therefore adds additional comments to the function
> header to explain it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>

Looks good, thank you!  As always, I could not resist the urge to
do a bit of wordsmithing, so that the queued commit is as shown
below.  Please let me know if I messed anything up.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

commit 7dac7adefcae7558b3a85a16f51186d621623733
Author: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Date:   Tue Nov 3 09:26:03 2020 -0500

    rcu/segcblist: Add additional comments to explain smp_mb()
    
    One counter-intuitive property of RCU is the fact that full memory
    barriers are needed both before and after updates to the full
    (non-segmented) length.  This patch therefore helps to assist the
    reader's intuition by adding appropriate comments.
    
    [ paulmck:  Wordsmithing. ]
    Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
index bb246d8..b6dda7c 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcu_segcblist.c
@@ -94,17 +94,77 @@ static void rcu_segcblist_set_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
  * field to disagree with the actual number of callbacks on the structure.
  * This increase is fully ordered with respect to the callers accesses
  * both before and after.
+ *
+ * So why on earth is a memory barrier required both before and after
+ * the update to the ->len field???
+ *
+ * The reason is that rcu_barrier() locklessly samples each CPU's ->len
+ * field, and if a given CPU's field is zero, avoids IPIing that CPU.
+ * This can of course race with both queuing and invoking of callbacks.
+ * Failng to correctly handle either of these races could result in
+ * rcu_barrier() failing to IPI a CPU that actually had callbacks queued
+ * which rcu_barrier() was obligated to wait on.  And if rcu_barrier()
+ * failed to wait on such a callback, unloading certain kernel modules
+ * would result in calls to functions whose code was no longer present in
+ * the kernel, for but one example.
+ *
+ * Therefore, ->len transitions from 1->0 and 0->1 have to be carefully
+ * ordered with respect with both list modifications and the rcu_barrier().
+ *
+ * The queuing case is CASE 1 and the invoking case is CASE 2.
+ *
+ * CASE 1: Suppose that CPU 0 has no callbacks queued, but invokes
+ * call_rcu() just as CPU 1 invokes rcu_barrier().  CPU 0's ->len field
+ * will transition from 0->1, which is one of the transitions that must be
+ * handled carefully.  Without the full memory barriers before the ->len
+ * update and at the beginning of rcu_barrier(), the following could happen:
+ *
+ * CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ * call_rcu().
+ *                      		rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0.
+ * set ->len = 1.
+ *                      		rcu_barrier() does nothing.
+ *					module is unloaded.
+ * callback invokes unloaded function!
+ *
+ * With the full barriers, any case where rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0 will
+ * have unambiguously preceded the return from the racing call_rcu(), which
+ * means that this call_rcu() invocation is OK to not wait on.  After all,
+ * you are supposed to make sure that any problematic call_rcu() invocations
+ * happen before the rcu_barrier().
+ *
+ *
+ * CASE 2: Suppose that CPU 0 is invoking its last callback just as CPU 1 invokes
+ * rcu_barrier().  CPU 0's ->len field will transition from 1->0, which is one
+ * of the transitions that must be handled carefully.  Without the full memory
+ * barriers after the ->len update and at the end of rcu_barrier(), the following
+ * could happen:
+ * 
+ * CPU 0				CPU 1
+ *
+ * start invoking last callback
+ * set ->len = 0 (reordered)
+ *                      		rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0
+ *                      		rcu_barrier() does nothing.
+ *					module is unloaded
+ * callback executing after unloaded!
+ *
+ * With the full barriers, any case where rcu_barrier() sees ->len as 0
+ * will be fully ordered after the completion of the callback function,
+ * so that the module unloading operation is completely safe.
+ * 
  */
 void rcu_segcblist_add_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
-	smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb__before_atomic(); // Read header comment above.
 	atomic_long_add(v, &rsclp->len);
-	smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb__after_atomic();  // Read header comment above.
 #else
-	smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb(); // Read header comment above.
 	WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->len, rsclp->len + v);
-	smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
+	smp_mb(); // Read header comment above.
 #endif
 }
 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists