Message-ID: <0ef2e974-5c3a-6195-62d5-a4c436bd7d82@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:17:49 +0100
From:   Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, will <will@...nel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, npiggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@...il.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@...dia.com>, joel <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)



On 1/26/2023 2:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 08:45:44PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 03:33:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> Ah, and returning to the earlier question as to whether srcu_read_unlock()
>>> can use release semantics instead of smp_mb(), at the very least, this
>>> portion of the synchronize_srcu() function's header comment must change:
>>>
>>> 	On systems with more than one CPU, when synchronize_srcu()
>>> 	returns, each CPU is guaranteed to have executed a full
>>> 	memory barrier since the end of its last corresponding SRCU
>>> 	read-side critical section whose beginning preceded the call
>>> 	to synchronize_srcu().
>>
>> Of course, there might be code relying on a guarantee that
>> srcu_read_unlock() executes a full memory barrier.  This guarantee would
>> certainly no longer hold.  But as I understand it, this guarantee was
>> never promised by the SRCU subsystem.
> That indented sentence was copied from the synchronize_srcu() function's
> header comment, which might be interpreted by some as a promise by the
> SRCU subsystem.

I think we understand that it is a promise of the SRCU subsystem, the 
question is just what the promise is.
As Alan said, if the promise is interpreted as something like

"every store that propagated to the read side critical section must have 
propagated to all CPUs before the  synchronize_srcu() ends" (where the 
RSCS and synchronize_srcu() calls are those from the promise)

then that guarantee holds even if you only use a release fence to 
communicate the end of the RSCS to the GP. Note that this interpretation 
is analogous to the promise of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), which says 
that an UNLOCK+LOCK pair act as a full fence: here the read-side 
unlock+gp act as a full memory barrier.

On the other hand, if the promise is more literally interpreted as

"there is a (possibly virtual) instruction in the reader-side execution 
stream that acts as a full memory barrier, and that instruction is 
executed before the  synchronize_srcu() ends"

then that guarantee is violated, and I suppose you might be able to 
write some absurd client that inspects every store of the reader thread 
and sees that there is no line in the reader side code that acts like a 
full fence. But it would take a lot of effort to discern this.

Perhaps someone interpreting the promise like this might however come to 
the conclusion that because the only part of the code that is actually 
under control of srcu, and hence the only code where that full barrier 
could be hidden, would be inside the srcu_unlock(), they might expect to 
always find this full barrier there and treat srcu_unlock() in general 
as a full barrier. Considering that the wording explicitly isn't "an 
srcu_unlock() is a full barrier", I hope few people would have this 
unhealthy idea. But you never know.

Best wishes,
jonas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists