[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250307185323.74b80549@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:53:23 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Allison Henderson <allison.henderson@...cle.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] net/rds: Avoid queuing superfluous send and recv
work
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:28:57 +0000 Allison Henderson wrote:
> > Let's be precise, can you give an example of 2 execution threads
> > and memory accesses which have to be ordered.
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> I just realized my last response referred to bits and functions in the next patch instead this of one. Apologies for
> the confusion! For this thread example though, I think a pair of threads in rds_send_worker and rds_sendmsg would be a
> good example? How about this:
>
> Thread A:
> Calls rds_send_worker()
> calls rds_clear_queued_send_work_bit()
> clears RDS_SEND_WORK_QUEUED in cp->cp_flags
> calls rds_send_xmit()
> calls cond_resched()
>
> Thread B:
> Calls rds_sendmsg()
> Calls rds_send_xmit
> Calls rds_cond_queue_send_work
> checks and sets RDS_SEND_WORK_QUEUED in cp->cp_flags
We need at least two memory locations if we want to talk about ordering.
In your example we have cp_flags, but the rest is code.
What's the second memory location.
Take a look at e592b5110b3e9393 for an example of a good side by side
thread execution.. listing(?):
Thread1 (oa_tc6_start_xmit) Thread2 (oa_tc6_spi_thread_handler)
--------------------------- -----------------------------------
- if waiting_tx_skb is NULL
- if ongoing_tx_skb is NULL
- ongoing_tx_skb = waiting_tx_skb
- waiting_tx_skb = skb
- waiting_tx_skb = NULL
...
- ongoing_tx_skb = NULL
- if waiting_tx_skb is NULL
- waiting_tx_skb = skb
This makes it pretty clear what fields are at play and how the race
happens.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists