On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:22 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 02:07:18PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * psi_update_work represents slowpath accounting part while
> > + * psi_group_change represents hotpath part.
> > + * There are two potential races between these path:
> > + * 1. Changes to group->polling when slowpath checks for new stall, then
> > + * hotpath records new stall and then slowpath resets group->polling
> > + * flag. This leads to the exit from the polling mode while monitored
> > + * states are still changing.
> > + * 2. Slowpath overwriting an immediate update scheduled from the hotpath
> > + * with a regular update further in the future and missing the
> > + * immediate update.
> > + * Both races are handled with a retry cycle in the slowpath:
> > + *
> > + * HOTPATH: | SLOWPATH:
> > + * |
> > + * A) times[cpu] += delta | E) delta = times[*]
> > + * B) start_poll = (delta[poll_mask] &&| if delta[poll_mask]:
> > + * cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1) == 0)| F) polling_until = now +
> > + * | grace_period
> > + * | if now > polling_until:
> > + * if start_poll: | if g->polling:
> > + * C) mod_delayed_work(1) | G) g->polling = polling = 0
> > + * else if !delayed_work_pending(): | H) goto SLOWPATH
> > + * D) schedule_delayed_work(PSI_FREQ)| else:
> > + * | if !g->polling:
> > + * | I) g->polling = polling = 1
> > + * | J) if delta && first_pass:
> > + * | next_avg = calculate_averages()
> > + * | if polling:
> > + * | next_poll = poll_triggers()
> > + * | if (delta && first_pass) || polling:
> > + * | K) mod_delayed_work(
> > + * | min(next_avg, next_poll))
> > + * | if !polling:
> > + * | first_pass = false
> > + * | L) goto SLOWPATH
> > + *
> > + * Race #1 is represented by (EABGD) sequence in which case slowpath
> > + * deactivates polling mode because it misses new monitored stall and hotpath
> > + * doesn't activate it because at (B) g->polling is not yet reset by slowpath
> > + * in (G). This race is handled by the (H) retry, which in the race described
> > + * above results in the new sequence of (EABGDHEIK) that reactivates polling
> > + * mode.
> > + *
> > + * Race #2 is represented by polling==false && (JABCK) sequence which
> > + * overwrites immediate update scheduled at (C) with a later (next_avg) update
> > + * scheduled at (K). This race is handled by the (L) retry which results in the
> > + * new sequence of polling==false && (JABCKLEIK) that reactivates polling mode
> > + * and reschedules next polling update (next_poll).
> > + *
> > + * Note that retries can't result in an infinite loop because retry #1 happens
> > + * only during polling reactivation and retry #2 happens only on the first
> > + * pass. Constant reactivations are impossible because polling will stay active
> > + * for at least grace_period. Worst case scenario involves two retries (HEJKLE)
> > + */
>
> I'm having a fairly hard time with this. There's a distinct lack of
> memory ordering, and a suspicious mixing of atomic ops (cmpxchg) and
> regular loads and stores (without READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE even).
>
> Please clarify.
Thanks for the feedback.
I do mix atomic and regular loads with g->polling only because the
slowpath is the only one that resets it back to 0, so
cmpxchg(g->polling, 1, 0) == 1 at (G) would always return 1.
Setting g->polling back to 1 at (I) indeed needs an atomic operation
but at that point it does not matter whether hotpath or slowpath sets
it. In either case we will schedule a polling update.
Am I missing anything?
For memory ordering (which Johannes also pointed out) the critical point is:
times[cpu] += delta | if g->polling:
smp_wmb() | g->polling = polling = 0
cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1) | smp_rmb()
| delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
So that hotpath writes to times[] then g->polling and slowpath reads
g->polling then times[]. cmpxchg() implies a full barrier, so we can
drop smp_wmb(). Something like this:
times[cpu] += delta | if g->polling:
cmpxchg(g->polling, 0, 1) | g->polling = polling = 0
| smp_rmb()
| delta = times[*] (through goto SLOWPATH)
Would that address your concern about ordering?
> (also, you look to have a whole bunch of line-breaks that are really not
> needed; concattenated the line would not be over 80 chars).
Will try to minimize line-breaks.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kernel-team" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>
