Date:   Mon, 9 Nov 2020 17:28:42 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <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 Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 05:41:41PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:55:51AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 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().
> 
> Unfortunately, I did not understand your explanation. To me the barrier
> *before* the setting of length is needed on CPU0 only for 1->0 transition
> (Dequeue). Where as in
> your example above, it is for enqueue.
> 
> This was case 1 in my patch:
> 
> + * To illustrate the problematic scenario to avoid:
> + * P0 (what P1 sees)	P1
> + * set len = 0
> + *                      rcu_barrier sees len as 0
> + * dequeue from list
> + *                      rcu_barrier does nothing.
> + *
> 
> 
> Here, P1 should see the transition of 1->0 *after* the CB is dequeued. Which
> means you needed a memory barrier *before* the setting of len from 1->0 and
> *after* the dequeue. IOW, rcu_barrier should 'see' the memory ordering as:
> 
> 1. dequeue
> 2. set len from 1 -> 0.
> 
> For the enqueue case, it is the reverse, rcu_barrier should see:
> 1. set len from 0 -> 1
> 2. enqueue
> 
> Either way, the point I think I was trying to make is that the length should
> always be seen as non-zero if the list is non-empty. Basically, the
> rcu_barrier() should always not do the fast-path if the list is non-empty.
> Worst-case it might do the slow-path when it is not necessary, but it should
> never do the fast-path when it was not supposed to.
> 
> Thoughts?

Right you are!  I reversed the before/after associated with ->len.
I will fix this.

							Thanx, Paul

> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> 
> 
> > + *
> > + *
> > + * 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