On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 05:37:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 05:11:55PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > /*
> > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock() provides the equivalent of a full memory barrier
> > + * between program-order earlier lock acquisitions and program-order later
> > + * memory accesses.
> > *
> > + * This guarantees that the following two properties hold:
> > *
> > + * 1) Given the snippet:
> > *
> > + * { X = 0; Y = 0; }
> > *
> > + * CPU0 CPU1
> > *
> > + * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1);
> > + * spin_lock(S); smp_mb();
> > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); r1 = READ_ONCE(X);
> > + * r0 = READ_ONCE(Y);
> > + * spin_unlock(S);
> > *
> > + * it is forbidden that CPU0 does not observe CPU1's store to Y (r0 = 0)
> > + * and CPU1 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r1 = 0); see the comments
> > + * preceding the call to smp_mb__after_spinlock() in __schedule() and in
> > + * try_to_wake_up().
> > + *
> > + * 2) Given the snippet:
> > + *
> > + * { X = 0; Y = 0; }
> > + *
> > + * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> > + *
> > + * spin_lock(S); spin_lock(S); r1 = READ_ONCE(Y);
> > + * WRITE_ONCE(X, 1); smp_mb__after_spinlock(); smp_rmb();
> > + * spin_unlock(S); r0 = READ_ONCE(X); r2 = READ_ONCE(X);
> > + * WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1);
> > + * spin_unlock(S);
> > + *
> > + * it is forbidden that CPU0's critical section executes before CPU1's
> > + * critical section (r0 = 1), CPU2 observes CPU1's store to Y (r1 = 1)
> > + * and CPU2 does not observe CPU0's store to X (r2 = 0); see the comments
> > + * preceding the calls to smp_rmb() in try_to_wake_up() for similar
> > + * snippets but "projected" onto two CPUs.
>
> Maybe explicitly note that 2) is the RCsc lock upgrade.
Yes, I'll do a respin to add this note and the below Ack shortly.
Thanks,
Andrea
>
>
> > * Since most load-store architectures implement ACQUIRE with an smp_mb() after
> > * the LL/SC loop, they need no further barriers. Similarly all our TSO
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index da8f12119a127..ec9ef0aec71ac 100644
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -1999,21 +1999,20 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> > * be possible to, falsely, observe p->on_rq == 0 and get stuck
> > * in smp_cond_load_acquire() below.
> > *
> > + * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up()
> > + * STORE p->on_rq = 1 LOAD p->state
> > + * UNLOCK rq->lock
> > + *
> > + * __schedule() (switch to task 'p')
> > + * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb();
> > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock();
> > + * UNLOCK rq->lock
> > *
> > * [task p]
> > + * STORE p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE LOAD p->on_rq
> > *
> > + * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in
> > + * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock().
> > */
> > smp_rmb();
> > if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
> > @@ -2027,15 +2026,17 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> > * One must be running (->on_cpu == 1) in order to remove oneself
> > * from the runqueue.
> > *
> > + * __schedule() (switch to task 'p') try_to_wake_up()
> > + * STORE p->on_cpu = 1 LOAD p->on_rq
> > + * UNLOCK rq->lock
> > + *
> > + * __schedule() (put 'p' to sleep)
> > + * LOCK rq->lock smp_rmb();
> > + * smp_mb__after_spinlock();
> > + * STORE p->on_rq = 0 LOAD p->on_cpu
> > *
> > + * Pairs with the LOCK+smp_mb__after_spinlock() on rq->lock in
> > + * __schedule(). See the comment for smp_mb__after_spinlock().
> > */
> > smp_rmb();
>
> Ah yes, good.
>
> Ack!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
