On Tue 24-01-12 12:21:20, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:04:36 +0100 > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri 20-01-12 10:08:44, Ying Han wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:17 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:37:59 +0100 > > > > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wed 18-01-12 09:06:56, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > >> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:26:35 +0100 > > > >> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri 13-01-12 17:33:47, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > >> > > > I think this bugfix is needed before going ahead. thoughts? > > > >> > > > == > > > >> > > > From 2cb491a41782b39aae9f6fe7255b9159ac6c1563 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > >> > > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > > > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:27:20 +0900 > > > >> > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/7] memcg: add memory barrier for checking account move. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > At starting move_account(), source memcg's per-cpu variable > > > >> > > > MEM_CGROUP_ON_MOVE is set. The page status update > > > >> > > > routine check it under rcu_read_lock(). But there is no memory > > > >> > > > barrier. This patch adds one. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > OK this would help to enforce that the CPU would see the current value > > > >> > > but what prevents us from the race with the value update without the > > > >> > > lock? This is as racy as it was before AFAICS. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hm, do I misunderstand ? > > > >> > == > > > >> > update reference > > > >> > > > > >> > CPU A CPU B > > > >> > set value rcu_read_lock() > > > >> > smp_wmb() smp_rmb() > > > >> > read_value > > > >> > rcu_read_unlock() > > > >> > synchronize_rcu(). > > > >> > == > > > >> > I expect > > > >> > If synchronize_rcu() is called before rcu_read_lock() => move_lock_xxx will be held. > > > >> > If synchronize_rcu() is called after rcu_read_lock() => update will be delayed. > > > >> > > > >> Ahh, OK I can see it now. Readers are not that important because it is > > > >> actually the updater who is delayed until all preexisting rcu read > > > >> sections are finished. > > > >> > > > >> In that case. Why do we need both barriers? spin_unlock is a full > > > >> barrier so maybe we just need smp_rmb before we read value to make sure > > > >> that we do not get stalled value when we start rcu_read section after > > > >> synchronize_rcu? > > > >> > > > > > > > > I doubt .... If no barrier, this case happens > > > > > > > > == > > > > update reference > > > > CPU A CPU B > > > > set value > > > > synchronize_rcu() rcu_read_lock() > > > > read_value <= find old value > > > > rcu_read_unlock() > > > > do no lock > > > > == > > > > > > Hi Kame, > > > > > > Can you help to clarify a bit more on the example above? Why > > > read_value got the old value after synchronize_rcu(). > > > > AFAIU it is because rcu_read_unlock doesn't force any memory barrier > > and we synchronize only the updater (with synchronize_rcu), so nothing > > guarantees that the value set on CPUA is visible to CPUB. > > > > Thank you. > > ...Finally, I'd like to make this check to atomic_t rather than complicated > percpu counter. Hmm, do it now ? I thought you wanted to prevent from atomics but you would need a read barrier in the reader side because only atomics which change the state imply a memory barrier IIRC. So it is a question why atomic is simpler... > > Thanks, > -Kame > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
