[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69667b21-9491-458d-9523-6c2b29e1a7e6@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 14:20:55 +0900
From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
To: zilin@....edu.cn, dhowells@...hat.com
Cc: jianhao.xu@....edu.cn, jlayton@...nel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfs@...ts.linux.dev, mjguzik@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/netfs: Remove redundant use of smp_rmb()
[+CC: Mateusz, who responded ZiLin's original question at:
https://lore.kernel.org/ulg54pf2qnlzqfj247fypypzun2yvwepqrcwaqzlr6sn3ukuab@rov7btfppktc/ ]
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 02:19:52 +0000, Zilin Guan wrote:
> The function netfs_unbuffered_write_iter_locked() in
> fs/netfs/direct_write.c contains an unnecessary smp_rmb() call after
> wait_on_bit(). Since wait_on_bit() already incorporates a memory barrier
> that ensures the flag update is visible before the function returns, the
> smp_rmb() provides no additional benefit and incurs unnecessary overhead.
>
> This patch removes the redundant barrier to simplify and optimize the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zilin Guan <zilin@....edu.cn>
> ---
> fs/netfs/direct_write.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/netfs/direct_write.c b/fs/netfs/direct_write.c
> index 88f2adfab75e..173e8b5e6a93 100644
> --- a/fs/netfs/direct_write.c
> +++ b/fs/netfs/direct_write.c
> @@ -104,7 +104,6 @@ ssize_t netfs_unbuffered_write_iter_locked(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *
> trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_wait_ip);
> wait_on_bit(&wreq->flags, NETFS_RREQ_IN_PROGRESS,
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - smp_rmb(); /* Read error/transferred after RIP flag */
> ret = wreq->error;
> if (ret == 0) {
> ret = wreq->transferred;
You are removing a barrier which is deemed to be required by LKMM.
See section "SLEEP AND WAKE-UP FUNCTIONS" in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt.
Quoting relevant note below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[!] Note that the memory barriers implied by the sleeper and the waker do *not*
order multiple stores before the wake-up with respect to loads of those stored
values after the sleeper has called set_current_state(). For instance, if the
sleeper does:
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (event_indicated)
break;
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
do_something(my_data);
and the waker does:
my_data = value;
event_indicated = 1;
wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
there's no guarantee that the change to event_indicated will be perceived by
the sleeper as coming after the change to my_data. In such a circumstance, the
code on both sides must interpolate its own memory barriers between the
separate data accesses. Thus the above sleeper ought to do:
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (event_indicated) {
smp_rmb();
do_something(my_data);
}
and the waker should do:
my_data = value;
smp_wmb();
event_indicated = 1;
wake_up(&event_wait_queue);
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure removing the smp_rmb() is realy the right thing to do?
Thanks, Akira
> --
> 2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists