Message-ID: <e4aa3346-ba2c-f6cc-9f3c-349e22cd6ee8@colorfullife.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:52:50 +0200
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-model 2/4] tools/memory-model: Add example for
 heuristic lockless reads

Hi Alan,

On 7/23/21 4:08 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 02:10:01PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> This commit adds example code for heuristic lockless reads, based loosely
>> on the sem_lock() and sem_unlock() functions.
>>
>> Reported-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
>> [ paulmck: Update per Manfred Spraul and Hillf Danton feedback. ]
>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>> ---
>>   .../Documentation/access-marking.txt          | 94 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 94 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
>> index 58bff26198767..be7d507997cf8 100644
>> --- a/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
>> +++ b/tools/memory-model/Documentation/access-marking.txt
>> @@ -319,6 +319,100 @@ of the ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_WRITER() is to allow KCSAN to check for a buggy
>>   concurrent lockless write.
>>   
>>   
>> +Lock-Protected Writes With Heuristic Lockless Reads
>> +---------------------------------------------------
>> +
>> +For another example, suppose that the code can normally make use of
>> +a per-data-structure lock, but there are times when a global lock
>> +is required.  These times are indicated via a global flag.  The code
>> +might look as follows, and is based loosely on nf_conntrack_lock(),
>> +nf_conntrack_all_lock(), and nf_conntrack_all_unlock():
>> +
>> +	bool global_flag;
>> +	DEFINE_SPINLOCK(global_lock);
>> +	struct foo {
>> +		spinlock_t f_lock;
>> +		int f_data;
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	/* All foo structures are in the following array. */
>> +	int nfoo;
>> +	struct foo *foo_array;
>> +
>> +	void do_something_locked(struct foo *fp)
>> +	{
>> +		bool gf = true;
>> +
>> +		/* IMPORTANT: Heuristic plus spin_lock()! */
>> +		if (!data_race(global_flag)) {
>> +			spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> +			if (!smp_load_acquire(&global_flag)) {
>> +				do_something(fp);
>> +				spin_unlock(&fp->f_lock);
>> +				return;
>> +			}
>> +			spin_unlock(&fp->f_lock);
>> +		}
>> +		spin_lock(&global_lock);
>> +		/* Lock held, thus global flag cannot change. */
>> +		if (!global_flag) {
> How can global_flag ever be true at this point?  The only line of code
> that sets it is in begin_global() below, it only runs while global_lock
> is held, and global_flag is set back to false before the lock is
> released.

It can't be true. The code is a simplified version of the algorithm in 
ipc/sem.c.

For the ipc/sem.c, global_flag can remain true even after dropping 
global_lock.

When transferring the approach to nf_conntrack_core, I didn't notice 
that nf_conntrack doesn't need a persistent global_flag.

Thus the recheck after spin_lock(&global_lock) is not needed.


>> +			spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> +			spin_unlock(&global_lock);
>> +			gf = false;
>> +		}
>> +		do_something(fp);
>> +		if (fg)
> Should be gf, not fg.
>
>> +			spin_unlock(&global_lock);
>> +		else
>> +			spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	void begin_global(void)
>> +	{
>> +		int i;
>> +
>> +		spin_lock(&global_lock);
>> +		WRITE_ONCE(global_flag, true);
> Why does this need to be WRITE_ONCE?  It still races with the first read
> of global_flag above.
>
>> +		for (i = 0; i < nfoo; i++) {
>> +			/* Wait for pre-existing local locks. */
>> +			spin_lock(&fp->f_lock);
>> +			spin_unlock(&fp->f_lock);
> Why not acquire all the locks here and release all of them in
> end_global()?  Then global_flag wouldn't need acquire-release
> sychronization.

 From my understanding:
spin_lock contains preempt_count_add, thus you can't acquire more than 
255 spinlocks (actually 245, the warning limit is 10 below 255)

>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	void end_global(void)
>> +	{
>> +		smp_store_release(&global_flag, false);
>> +		/* Pre-existing global lock acquisitions will recheck. */
> What does that comment mean?  How can there be any pre-existing global
> lock acquisitions when we hold the lock right now?

>> +		spin_unlock(&global_lock);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +All code paths leading from the do_something_locked() function's first
>> +read from global_flag acquire a lock, so endless load fusing cannot
>> +happen.
>> +
>> +If the value read from global_flag is true, then global_flag is rechecked
>> +while holding global_lock, which prevents global_flag from changing.
>> +If this recheck finds that global_flag is now false, the acquisition
> Again, how can't global_flag be false now?
>
> Did you originally have in mind some sort of scheme in which
> begin_global() would release global_lock before returning and
> end_global() would acquire global_lock before clearing global_flag?  But
> I don't see how that could work without changes to do_something_locked().
>
>> +of ->f_lock prior to the release of global_lock will result in any subsequent
>> +begin_global() invocation waiting to acquire ->f_lock.
>> +
>> +On the other hand, if the value read from global_flag is false, then
>> +global_flag, then rechecking under ->f_lock combined with synchronization
> ---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Typo?
>
>> +with begin_global() guarantees than any erroneous read will cause the
>> +do_something_locked() function's first do_something() invocation to happen
>> +before begin_global() returns.  The combination of the smp_load_acquire()
>> +in do_something_locked() and the smp_store_release() in end_global()
>> +guarantees that either the do_something_locked() function's first
>> +do_something() invocation happens after the call to end_global() or that
>> +do_something_locked() acquires global_lock() and rechecks under the lock.
> This last sentence also makes no sense unless you imagine dropping
> global_lock between begin_global() and end_global().

ipc/sem.c does that and needs that, nf_conntrack doesn't use this.


--

     Manfred

Powered by blists - more mailing lists