Message-ID: <20221222194511.GS4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 11:45:11 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] srcu: Remove pre-flip memory barrier

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:56:17PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Dec 22, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:19:06PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>> On Dec 22, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:40:10PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:11:42PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-12-21 06:59, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:34:19PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The memory ordering constraint I am concerned about here is:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> * [...] In addition,
> >>>>>>> * each CPU having an SRCU read-side critical section that extends beyond
> >>>>>>> * the return from synchronize_srcu() is guaranteed to have executed a
> >>>>>>> * full memory barrier after the beginning of synchronize_srcu() and before
> >>>>>>> * the beginning of that SRCU read-side critical section. [...]
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> So if we have a SRCU read-side critical section that begins after the beginning
> >>>>>>> of synchronize_srcu, but before its first memory barrier, it would miss the
> >>>>>>> guarantee that the full memory barrier is issued before the beginning of that
> >>>>>>> SRCU read-side critical section. IOW, that memory barrier needs to be at the
> >>>>>>> very beginning of the grace period.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I'm confused, what's wrong with this ?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> UPDATER                  READER
> >>>>>> -------                  ------
> >>>>>> STORE X = 1              STORE srcu_read_lock++
> >>>>>> // rcu_seq_snap()        smp_mb()
> >>>>>> smp_mb()                 READ X
> >>>>>> // scans
> >>>>>> READ srcu_read_lock
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> What you refer to here is only memory ordering of the store to X and load
> >>>>> from X wrt loading/increment of srcu_read_lock, which is internal to the
> >>>>> srcu implementation. If we really want to model the provided high-level
> >>>>> memory ordering guarantees, we should consider a scenario where SRCU is used
> >>>>> for its memory ordering properties to synchronize other variables.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I'm concerned about the following Dekker scenario, where synchronize_srcu()
> >>>>> and srcu_read_lock/unlock would be used instead of memory barriers:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Initial state: X = 0, Y = 0
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Thread A                   Thread B
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>>>> STORE X = 1                STORE Y = 1
> >>>>> synchronize_srcu()
> >>>>>                          srcu_read_lock()
> >>>>>                          r1 = LOAD X
> >>>>>                          srcu_read_unlock()
> >>>>> r0 = LOAD Y
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> BUG_ON(!r0 && !r1)
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> So in the synchronize_srcu implementation, there appears to be two
> >>>>> major scenarios: either srcu_gp_start_if_needed starts a gp or expedited gp,
> >>>>> or it uses an already started gp/expedited gp. When snapshotting with
> >>>>> rcu_seq_snap, the fact that the memory barrier is after the ssp->srcu_gp_seq
> >>>>> load means that it does not order prior memory accesses before that load.
> >>>>> This sequence value is then used to identify which gp_seq to wait for when
> >>>>> piggy-backing on another already-started gp. I worry about reordering
> >>>>> between STORE X = 1 and load of ssp->srcu_gp_seq, which is then used to
> >>>>> piggy-back on an already-started gp.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I suspect that the implicit barrier in srcu_read_lock() invoked at the
> >>>>> beginning of srcu_gp_start_if_needed() is really the barrier that makes
> >>>>> all this behave as expected. But without documentation it's rather hard to
> >>>>> follow.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Oh ok I see now. It might be working that way by accident or on forgotten
> >>>> purpose. In any case, we really want to add a comment above that
> >>>> __srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() call.
> >>> 
> >>> Another test for the safety (or not) of removing either D or E is
> >>> to move that WRITE_ONCE() to follow (or, respectively, precede) the
> >>> adjacent scans.
> >> 
> >> Good idea, though I believe the MBs that the above talk about are not the flip ones. They are the ones in synchronize_srcu() beginning and end, that order with respect to grace period start and end.
> >> 
> >> So that (flipping MBs) is unrelated, or did I miss something?
> > 
> > The thought is to manually similate in the source code the maximum
> > memory-reference reordering that a maximally hostile compiler and CPU
> > would be permitted to carry out.  So yes, given that there are other
> > memory barriers before and after, these other memory barriers limit how
> > far the flip may be moved in the source code.
> > 
> > Here I am talking about the memory barriers associated with the flip,
> > but the same trick can of course be applied to other memory barriers.
> > In general, remove a given memory barrier and (in the source code)
> > maximally rearrange the memory references that were previously ordered
> > by the memory barrier in question.
> > 
> > Again, the presence of other memory barriers will limit the permitted
> > maximal source-code rearrangement.
> 
> 
> Makes sense if the memory barrier is explicit. In this case, the memory barriers are implicit apparently, with a srcu_read_lock() in the beginning of synchronize_rcu() having the implicit / indirect memory barrier. So I am not sure if that can be implemented without breaking SRCU readers.

First, are we talking about the same barrier?  I am talking about E.

Yes, this would require a bit of restructuring.  The overall
approach would be something like this, in SRCU_STATE_SCAN1:

1.	Scan the unlocks.

2.	smp_mb(); /* A */

3.	Flip the index.

4.	Scan the locks.

5.	If unlocks == locks, advance the state to SRCU_STATE_SCAN2.

6.	Otherwise, execute the current SRCU_STATE_SCAN1 code.

Give or take the usual devils in the details.

Alternatively, remove E and hammer it on a weakly ordered system.

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists