On 05/31, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 3:25 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/31, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > 在 2023/5/23 20:15, Oleg Nesterov 写道:
> > > >
> > > > /* make sure flag is seen after deletion */
> > > > smp_wmb();
> > > > llist_for_each_entry_safe(work, work_next, node, node) {
> > > > clear_bit(VHOST_WORK_QUEUED, &work->flags);
> > > >
> > > >I am not sure about smp_wmb + clear_bit. Once we clear VHOST_WORK_QUEUED,
> > > >vhost_work_queue() can add this work again and change work->node->next.
> > > >
> > > >That is why we use _safe, but we need to ensure that llist_for_each_safe()
> > > >completes LOAD(work->node->next) before VHOST_WORK_QUEUED is cleared.
> > >
> > > This should be fine since store is not speculated, so work->node->next needs
> > > to be loaded before VHOST_WORK_QUEUED is cleared to meet the loop condition.
> >
> > I don't understand you. OK, to simplify, suppose we have 2 global vars
> >
> > void *PTR = something_non_null;
> > unsigned long FLAGS = -1ul;
> >
> > Now I think this code
> >
> > CPU_0 CPU_1
> >
> > void *ptr = PTR; if (!test_and_set_bit(0, FLAGS))
> > clear_bit(0, FLAGS); PTR = NULL;
> > BUG_ON(!ptr);
> >
> > is racy and can hit the BUG_ON(!ptr).
>
> This seems different to the above case?
not sure,
> And you can hit BUG_ON with
> the following execution sequence:
>
> [cpu 0] clear_bit(0, FLAGS);
> [cpu 1] if (!test_and_set_bit(0, FLAGS))
> [cpu 1] PTR = NULL;
> [cpu 0] BUG_ON(!ptr)
I don't understand this part... yes, we can hit this BUG_ON() without mb in
between, this is what I tried to say.
> In vhost code, there's a condition before the clear_bit() which sits
> inside llist_for_each_entry_safe():
>
> #define llist_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, node, member) \
> for (pos = llist_entry((node), typeof(*pos), member); \
> member_address_is_nonnull(pos, member) && \
> (n = llist_entry(pos->member.next, typeof(*n), member), true); \
> pos = n)
>
> The clear_bit() is a store which is not speculated, so there's a
> control dependency, the store can't be executed until the condition
> expression is evaluated which requires pos->member.next
> (work->node.next) to be loaded.
But llist_for_each_entry_safe() doesn't check "n", I mean, it is not that we have
something like
n = llist_entry(...);
if (n)
clear_bit(...);
so I do not see how can we rely on the load-store control dependency.
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
