Message-ID: <c649c8ec-6c1b-41a3-90c5-43c0feed7803@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:52:04 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 rcu@...r.kernel.org, lkmm@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
 Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
 Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@...ux.dev>,
 Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, aeh@...a.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 edumazet@...gle.com, jhs@...atatu.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
 Erik Lundgren <elundgren@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Introduce simple hazard pointers


On 6/24/25 11:10 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> As its name suggests, simple hazard pointers (shazptr) is a
> simplification of hazard pointers [1]: it has only one hazard pointer
> slot per-CPU and is targeted for simple use cases where the read-side
> already has preemption disabled. It's a trade-off between full features
> of a normal hazard pointer implementation (multiple slots, dynamic slot
> allocation, etc.) and the simple use scenario.
>
> Since there's only one slot per-CPU, so shazptr read-side critical
> section nesting is a problem that needs to be resolved, because at very
> least, interrupts and NMI can introduce nested shazptr read-side
> critical sections. A SHAZPTR_WILDCARD is introduced to resolve this:
> SHAZPTR_WILDCARD is a special address value that blocks *all* shazptr
> waiters. In an interrupt-causing shazptr read-side critical section
> nesting case (i.e. an interrupt happens while the per-CPU hazard pointer
> slot being used and tries to acquire a hazard pointer itself), the inner
> critical section will switch the value of the hazard pointer slot into
> SHAZPTR_WILDCARD, and let the outer critical section eventually zero the
> slot. The SHAZPTR_WILDCARD still provide the correct protection because
> it blocks all the waiters.
>
> It's true that once the wildcard mechanism is activated, shazptr
> mechanism may be downgrade to something similar to RCU (and probably
> with a worse implementation), which generally has longer wait time and
> larger memory footprint compared to a typical hazard pointer
> implementation. However, that can only happen with a lot of users using
> hazard pointers, and then it's reasonable to introduce the
> fully-featured hazard pointer implementation [2] and switch users to it.
>
> Note that shazptr_protect() may be added later, the current potential
> usage doesn't require it, and a shazptr_acquire(), which installs the
> protected value to hazard pointer slot and proves the smp_mb(), is
> enough for now.
>
> [1]: M. M. Michael, "Hazard pointers: safe memory reclamation for
>       lock-free objects," in IEEE Transactions on Parallel and
>       Distributed Systems, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 491-504, June 2004
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240917143402.930114-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com/ [2]
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/shazptr.h  | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   kernel/locking/Makefile  |  2 +-
>   kernel/locking/shazptr.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++
>   3 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>   create mode 100644 include/linux/shazptr.h
>   create mode 100644 kernel/locking/shazptr.c
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/shazptr.h b/include/linux/shazptr.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..287cd04b4be9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/shazptr.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +/*
> + * Simple hazard pointers
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2025, Microsoft Corporation.
> + *
> + * Author: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> + *
> + * A simple variant of hazard pointers, the users must ensure the preemption
> + * is already disabled when calling a shazptr_acquire() to protect an address.
> + * If one shazptr_acquire() is called after another shazptr_acquire() has been
> + * called without the corresponding shazptr_clear() has been called, the later
> + * shazptr_acquire() must be cleared first.
> + *
> + * The most suitable usage is when only one address need to be protected in a
> + * preemption disabled critical section.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _LINUX_SHAZPTR_H
> +#define _LINUX_SHAZPTR_H
> +
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> +
> +/* Make ULONG_MAX the wildcard value */
> +#define SHAZPTR_WILDCARD ((void *)(ULONG_MAX))
> +
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(void *, shazptr_slots);
> +
> +/* Represent a held hazard pointer slot */
> +struct shazptr_guard {
> +	void **slot;
> +	bool use_wildcard;
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * Acquire a hazptr slot and begin the hazard pointer critical section.
> + *
> + * Must be called with preemption disabled, and preemption must remain disabled
> + * until shazptr_clear().
> + */
> +static inline struct shazptr_guard shazptr_acquire(void *ptr)
> +{
> +	struct shazptr_guard guard = {
> +		/* Preemption is disabled. */
> +		.slot = this_cpu_ptr(&shazptr_slots),
> +		.use_wildcard = false,
> +	};
> +
> +	if (likely(!READ_ONCE(*guard.slot))) {
> +		WRITE_ONCE(*guard.slot, ptr);
> +	} else {
> +		guard.use_wildcard = true;
> +		WRITE_ONCE(*guard.slot, SHAZPTR_WILDCARD);
> +	}
Is it correct to assume that shazptr cannot be used in a mixed context 
environment on the same CPU like a task context and an interrupt context 
trying to acquire it simultaneously because the current check isn't 
atomic with respect to that?
> +
> +	smp_mb(); /* Synchronize with smp_mb() at synchronize_shazptr(). */
> +
> +	return guard;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void shazptr_clear(struct shazptr_guard guard)
> +{
> +	/* Only clear the slot when the outermost guard is released */
> +	if (likely(!guard.use_wildcard))
> +		smp_store_release(guard.slot, NULL); /* Pair with ACQUIRE at synchronize_shazptr() */
> +}

Is it better to name it shazptr_release() to be conformant with our 
current locking convention?

Cheers,
Longman

Powered by blists - more mailing lists