Message-Id: <20230315193851.8598-3-joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 19:38:48 +0000
From:   "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] srcu: Clarify comments on memory barrier "E"

There is an smp_mb() named "E" in srcu_flip() immediately before the
increment (flip) of the srcu_struct structure's ->srcu_idx.

The purpose of E is to order the preceding scan's read of lock counters
against the flipping of the ->srcu_idx, in order to prevent new readers
from continuing to use the old ->srcu_idx value, which might needlessly
extend the grace period.

However, this ordering is already enforced because of the control
dependency between the preceding scan and the ->srcu_idx flip.
This control dependency exists because atomic_long_read() is used
to scan the counts, because WRITE_ONCE() is used to flip ->srcu_idx,
and because ->srcu_idx is not flipped until the ->srcu_lock_count[] and
->srcu_unlock_count[] counts match.  And such a match cannot happen when
there is an in-flight reader that started before the flip (observation
courtesy Mathieu Desnoyers).

The litmus test below (courtesy of Frederic Weisbecker, with changes
for ctrldep by Boqun and Joel) shows this:

C srcu
(*
 * bad condition: P0's first scan (SCAN1) saw P1's idx=0 LOCK count inc, though P1 saw flip.
 *
 * So basically, the ->po ordering on both P0 and P1 is enforced via ->ppo
 * (control deps) on both sides, and both P0 and P1 are interconnected by ->rf
 * relations. Combining the ->ppo with ->rf, a cycle is impossible.
 *)

{}

// updater
P0(int *IDX, int *LOCK0, int *UNLOCK0, int *LOCK1, int *UNLOCK1)
{
        int lock1;
        int unlock1;
        int lock0;
        int unlock0;

        // SCAN1
        unlock1 = READ_ONCE(*UNLOCK1);
        smp_mb(); // A
        lock1 = READ_ONCE(*LOCK1);

        // FLIP
        if (lock1 == unlock1) {   // Control dep
                smp_mb(); // E    // Remove E and still passes.
                WRITE_ONCE(*IDX, 1);
                smp_mb(); // D

                // SCAN2
                unlock0 = READ_ONCE(*UNLOCK0);
                smp_mb(); // A
                lock0 = READ_ONCE(*LOCK0);
        }
}

// reader
P1(int *IDX, int *LOCK0, int *UNLOCK0, int *LOCK1, int *UNLOCK1)
{
        int tmp;
        int idx1;
        int idx2;

        // 1st reader
        idx1 = READ_ONCE(*IDX);
        if (idx1 == 0) {         // Control dep
                tmp = READ_ONCE(*LOCK0);
                WRITE_ONCE(*LOCK0, tmp + 1);
                smp_mb(); /* B and C */
                tmp = READ_ONCE(*UNLOCK0);
                WRITE_ONCE(*UNLOCK0, tmp + 1);
        } else {
                tmp = READ_ONCE(*LOCK1);
                WRITE_ONCE(*LOCK1, tmp + 1);
                smp_mb(); /* B and C */
                tmp = READ_ONCE(*UNLOCK1);
                WRITE_ONCE(*UNLOCK1, tmp + 1);
        }
}

exists (0:lock1=1 /\ 1:idx1=1)

More complicated litmus tests with multiple SRCU readers also show that
memory barrier E is not needed.

This commit therefore clarifies the comment on memory barrier E.

Why not also remove that redundant smp_mb()?

Because control dependencies are quite fragile due to their not being
recognized by most compilers and tools.  Control dependencies therefore
exact an ongoing maintenance burden, and such a burden cannot be justified
in this slowpath.  Therefore, that smp_mb() stays until such time as
its overhead becomes a measurable problem in a real workload running on
a real production system, or until such time as compilers start paying
attention to this sort of control dependency.

Co-developed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Co-developed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Co-developed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
index ab4ee58af84b..68f89c533057 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
@@ -1085,16 +1085,36 @@ static bool try_check_zero(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx, int trycount)
 static void srcu_flip(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
 {
 	/*
-	 * Ensure that if this updater saw a given reader's increment
-	 * from __srcu_read_lock(), that reader was using an old value
-	 * of ->srcu_idx.  Also ensure that if a given reader sees the
-	 * new value of ->srcu_idx, this updater's earlier scans cannot
-	 * have seen that reader's increments (which is OK, because this
-	 * grace period need not wait on that reader).
+	 * Because the flip of ->srcu_idx is executed only if the
+	 * preceding call to srcu_readers_active_idx_check() found that
+	 * the ->srcu_unlock_count[] and ->srcu_lock_count[] sums matched
+	 * and because that summing uses atomic_long_read(), there is
+	 * ordering due to a control dependency between that summing and
+	 * the WRITE_ONCE() in this call to srcu_flip().  This ordering
+	 * ensures that if this updater saw a given reader's increment from
+	 * __srcu_read_lock(), that reader was using a value of ->srcu_idx
+	 * from before the previous call to srcu_flip(), which should be
+	 * quite rare.  This ordering thus helps forward progress because
+	 * the grace period could otherwise be delayed by additional
+	 * calls to __srcu_read_lock() using that old (soon to be new)
+	 * value of ->srcu_idx.
+	 *
+	 * This sum-equality check and ordering also ensures that if
+	 * a given call to __srcu_read_lock() uses the new value of
+	 * ->srcu_idx, this updater's earlier scans cannot have seen
+	 * that reader's increments, which is all to the good, because
+	 * this grace period need not wait on that reader.  After all,
+	 * if those earlier scans had seen that reader, there would have
+	 * been a sum mismatch and this code would not be reached.
+	 *
+	 * This means that the following smp_mb() is redundant, but
+	 * it stays until either (1) Compilers learn about this sort of
+	 * control dependency or (2) Some production workload running on
+	 * a production system is unduly delayed by this slowpath smp_mb().
 	 */
 	smp_mb(); /* E */  /* Pairs with B and C. */
 
-	WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx, ssp->srcu_idx + 1);
+	WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx, ssp->srcu_idx + 1); // Flip the counter.
 
 	/*
 	 * Ensure that if the updater misses an __srcu_read_unlock()
-- 
2.40.0.rc1.284.g88254d51c5-goog

Powered by blists - more mailing lists