[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <784ABF9D-303F-4FC8-8AFF-A3FF319B4E7A@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 21:40:11 +0800
From: Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: Question about the barrier() in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu()
> 2023年8月1日 上午4:09,Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> 写道:
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:27:04PM +0800, Alan Huang wrote:
>>
>>> 2023年7月21日 20:54,Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> 写道:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 20, 2023, at 4:00 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 am a bit doubtful there will be strong (any?) interest in replacing the barrier() with READ_ONCE() without any tangible reason, regardless of whether a gcc issue was fixed.
>>>
>>> But hey, if you want to float the idea…
>>
>> We already had the READ_ONCE() in rcu_deference_raw().
>>
>> The barrier() here makes me think we need write code like below:
>>
>> READ_ONCE(head->first);
>> barrier();
>> READ_ONCE(head->first);
>>
>> With READ_ONCE (or the deprecated ACCESS_ONCE),
>> I don’t think a compiler should cache the value of head->first.
>
> Apologies for the late reply!
>
> If both are READ_ONCE(), you should not need the barrier(). Unless there
> is some other code not shown in your example that requires it, that is.
And unless the compiler has a bug. :)
So, the barrier() in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu() is a workaround for a compiler bug.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> - Joel
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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