[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTej8a0ieBAqjbfn@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 12:01:05 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Rong Tao <rtoax@...mail.com>, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: elver@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, rongtao@...tc.cn, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] stop_machine: Apply smp_store_release() to
multi_stop_data::state
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:43:34PM +0800, Rong Tao wrote:
> From: Rong Tao <rongtao@...tc.cn>
>
> Replace smp_wmb()+WRITE_ONCE() with smp_store_release() and add comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rong Tao <rongtao@...tc.cn>
> ---
> kernel/stop_machine.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
> index 268c2e581698..cdf4a3fe0348 100644
> --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
> +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
> @@ -183,8 +183,10 @@ static void set_state(struct multi_stop_data *msdata,
> {
> /* Reset ack counter. */
> atomic_set(&msdata->thread_ack, msdata->num_threads);
> - smp_wmb();
> - WRITE_ONCE(msdata->state, newstate);
> + /* This smp_store_release() pair with READ_ONCE() in multi_cpu_stop().
> + * Avoid potential access multi_stop_data::state race behaviour.
> + */
> + smp_store_release(&msdata->state, newstate);
This doesn't match coding style:
/*
* Block comments should look like this, with a leading '/*' line
* before the text and a traling '*/' line afterwards.
*/
See https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html#commenting
I don't think the "Avoid potential access multi_stop_data::state race
behaviour." text is all that helpful, and I think we can drop that.
In general, it's unusual to pair a smp_store_release() with READ_ONCE(), and
for that to work it relies on dependency ordering and/or hazarding on the
reader side (e.g. the atomic_dec_and_test() is ordered after the READ_ONCE()
since it's an RMW and there's a control dependency, but a plain read could be
reordered w.r.t. the READ_ONCE()). So we probably need to explain that if we're
going to comment on that smp_store_release().
Peter, might it be worth replacing the READ_ONCE() with smp_load_acquire() at
the same time? I know it's not strictly necessary given the ordering we have
today, but it would at least be obvious.
Mark.
> }
>
> /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */
> --
> 2.41.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists