[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <722b64d7-281b-b4ab-4d4d-403abc41a36b@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:07:07 +0800
From: Hou Tao <houtao@...weicloud.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] Fold smp_mb__before_atomic() into
atomic_set_release()
Hi Paul,
On 10/19/2023 6:28 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> bpf: Fold smp_mb__before_atomic() into atomic_set_release()
>
> The bpf_user_ringbuf_drain() BPF_CALL function uses an atomic_set()
> immediately preceded by smp_mb__before_atomic() so as to order storing
> of ring-buffer consumer and producer positions prior to the atomic_set()
> call's clearing of the ->busy flag, as follows:
>
> smp_mb__before_atomic();
> atomic_set(&rb->busy, 0);
>
> Although this works given current architectures and implementations, and
> given that this only needs to order prior writes against a later write.
> However, it does so by accident because the smp_mb__before_atomic()
> is only guaranteed to work with read-modify-write atomic operations,
> and not at all with things like atomic_set() and atomic_read().
>
> Note especially that smp_mb__before_atomic() will not, repeat *not*,
> order the prior write to "a" before the subsequent non-read-modify-write
> atomic read from "b", even on strongly ordered systems such as x86:
>
> WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
> smp_mb__before_atomic();
> r1 = atomic_read(&b);
The reason is smp_mb__before_atomic() is defined as noop and
atomic_read() in x86-64 is just READ_ONCE(), right ?
And it seems that I also used smp_mb__before_atomic() in a wrong way for
patch [1]. The memory order in the posted patch is
process X process Y
atomic64_dec_and_test(&map->usercnt)
READ_ONCE(timer->timer)
timer->time = t
// it won't work
smp_mb__before_atomic()
atomic64_read(&map->usercnt)
For the problem, it seems I need to replace smp_mb__before_atomic() by
smp_mb() to fix the memory order, right ?
Regards,
Hou
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231017125717.241101-2-houtao@huaweicloud.com/
>
> Therefore, replace the smp_mb__before_atomic() and atomic_set() with
> atomic_set_release() as follows:
>
> atomic_set_release(&rb->busy, 0);
>
> This is no slower (and sometimes is faster) than the original, and also
> provides a formal guarantee of ordering that the original lacks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Acked-by: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
> Cc: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
> Cc: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
> Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> Cc: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> Cc: <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c b/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c
> index f045fde632e5..0ee653a936ea 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/ringbuf.c
> @@ -770,8 +770,7 @@ BPF_CALL_4(bpf_user_ringbuf_drain, struct bpf_map *, map,
> /* Prevent the clearing of the busy-bit from being reordered before the
> * storing of any rb consumer or producer positions.
> */
> - smp_mb__before_atomic();
> - atomic_set(&rb->busy, 0);
> + atomic_set_release(&rb->busy, 0);
>
> if (flags & BPF_RB_FORCE_WAKEUP)
> irq_work_queue(&rb->work);
>
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists