On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:15:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 08:09:10PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 09:55:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 05:12:36PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > > > > > > As Paul stated, interrupts are synchronization points. Archs can only > > > > > play games with ordering when dealing with entities outside the CPU > > > > > (devices and other CPUs). But if you have assembly that has two stores, > > > > > and an interrupt comes in, the arch must guarantee that the stores are > > > > > done in that order as the interrupt sees it. > > > > > > > > Hopefully I'm not derailing the conversation too much with my questions > > > > ... but I was wondering if we had any documentation (or inline comments) > > > > elaborating on this "interrupts are synchronization points"? > > > > > > I don't know of any, but I would suggest instead looking at something > > > like the Hennessey and Patterson computer-architecture textbook. > > > > > > Please keep in mind that the rather detailed documentation on RCU is a > > > bit of an outlier due to the fact that there are not so many textbooks > > > that cover RCU. If we tried to replicate all of the relevant textbooks > > > in the Documentation directory, it would be quite a large mess. ;-) > > > > You know some developers considered it worth to develop formal specs in > > order to better understand concepts such as "synchronization" and "IRQs > > (processing)"! ... ;-) I still think that adding a few paragraphs (if > > only in informal prose) to explain that "interrupts are synchronization > > points" wouln't hurt. And you're right, I guess we may well start from > > a reference to H&P... > > > > Remark: we do have code which (while acknowledging that "interrupts are > > synchronization points") doesn't quite seem to "believe it", c.f., e.g., > > kernel/sched/membarrier.c:ipi_mb(). So, I guess the follow-up question > > would be "Would we better be (more) paranoid? ..." > > As Steve said that I said, they are synchronization points from the > viewpoint of code within the interrupted CPU. Unless the architecture > code does as smp_mb() on interrupt entry and exit (which perhaps some > do, for all I know, maybe all of them do by now), memory accesses could > still be reordered across the interrupt from the perspective of other > CPUs and devices on the system. Yes, I got it. See: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190629182132.GA5666@andrea Still... Andrea
