[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <EDE1C0AE-B479-49F9-995D-DA9CC1A6EA57@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 22:31:13 +0800
From: Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: Question about the barrier() in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu()
> 2023年7月21日 05:11,Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> 写道:
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 10:00 PM Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 2023年7月21日 03:22,Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> 写道:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 8:54 PM Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I noticed a commit c87a124a5d5e(“net: force a reload of first item in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu”)
>>>> and a related discussion [1].
>>>>
>>>> After reading the whole discussion, it seems like that ptr->field was cached by gcc even with the deprecated
>>>> ACCESS_ONCE(), so my question is:
>>>>
>>>> Is that a compiler bug? If so, has this bug been fixed today, ten years later?
>>>>
>>>> What about READ_ONCE(ptr->field)?
>>>
>>> Make sure sparse is happy.
>>
>> It caused a problem without barrier(), and the deprecated ACCESS_ONCE() didn’t help:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/519D19DA.50400@yandex-team.ru/
>>
>> So, my real question is: With READ_ONCE(ptr->field), are there still some unusual cases where gcc
>> decides not to reload ptr->field?
>
> I can not really answer without seeing an actual patch...
The content of the potential patch:
diff --git a/include/linux/rculist_nulls.h b/include/linux/rculist_nulls.h
index 89186c499dd4..bcd39670f359 100644
--- a/include/linux/rculist_nulls.h
+++ b/include/linux/rculist_nulls.h
@@ -158,15 +158,9 @@ static inline void hlist_nulls_add_fake(struct hlist_nulls_node *n)
* @pos: the &struct hlist_nulls_node to use as a loop cursor.
* @head: the head of the list.
* @member: the name of the hlist_nulls_node within the struct.
- *
- * The barrier() is needed to make sure compiler doesn't cache first element [1],
- * as this loop can be restarted [2]
- * [1] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt around line 1533
- * [2] Documentation/RCU/rculist_nulls.rst around line 146
*/
#define hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu(tpos, pos, head, member) \
- for (({barrier();}), \
- pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_first_rcu(head)); \
+ for (pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_first_rcu(head)); \
(!is_a_nulls(pos)) && \
({ tpos = hlist_nulls_entry(pos, typeof(*tpos), member); 1; }); \
pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_next_rcu(pos)))
@@ -180,8 +174,7 @@ static inline void hlist_nulls_add_fake(struct hlist_nulls_node *n)
* @member: the name of the hlist_nulls_node within the struct.
*/
#define hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_safe(tpos, pos, head, member) \
- for (({barrier();}), \
- pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_first_rcu(head)); \
+ for (pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_first_rcu(head)); \
(!is_a_nulls(pos)) && \
({ tpos = hlist_nulls_entry(pos, typeof(*tpos), member); \
pos = rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_nulls_next_rcu(pos)); 1; });)
>
> Why are you asking ? Are you tracking compiler bug fixes ?
The barrier() here makes me confused.
If we really need that, do we need:
READ_ONCE(head->first);
barrier();
READ_ONCE(head->first);
?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a patch for review ?
>>
>> Possibly next month. :)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1369699930.3301.494.camel@edumazet-glaptop/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists