[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] padata: use smp_mb in padata_reorder to avoid orphaned padata jobs
Hi Daniel,

My two cents (summarizing some findings we discussed privately):

> I think adding the full barrier guarantees the following ordering, and the
> memory model people can correct me if I'm wrong:
> CPU21 CPU22
> ------------------------ --------------------------
> UNLOCK pd->lock
> smp_mb()
> LOAD reorder_objects
> INC reorder_objects
> spin_unlock(&pqueue->reorder.lock) // release barrier
> TRYLOCK pd->lock
> So if CPU22 has incremented reorder_objects but CPU21 reads 0 for it, CPU21
> should also have unlocked pd->lock so CPU22 can get it and serialize any
> remaining jobs.

This information inspired me to write down the following litmus test:
(AFAICT, you independently wrote a very similar test, which is indeed
quite reassuring! ;D)

C daniel-padata

{ }

P0(atomic_t *reorder_objects, spinlock_t *pd_lock)
int r0;

r0 = atomic_read(reorder_objects);

P1(atomic_t *reorder_objects, spinlock_t *pd_lock, spinlock_t *reorder_lock)
int r1;

r1 = spin_trylock(pd_lock);

exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=0)

It seems worth noticing that this test's "exists" clause is satisfiable
according to the (current) memory consistency model. (Informally, this
can be explained by noticing that the RELEASE from the spin_unlock() in
P1 does not provide any order between the atomic increment and the read
part of the spin_trylock() operation.) FWIW, uncommenting the smp_mb()
in P1 would suffice to prevent this clause from being satisfiable; I am
not sure, however, whether this approach is feasible or ideal... (sorry,
I'm definitely not too familiar with this code... ;/)


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-16 14:54    [W:0.118 / U:2.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site