On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:52:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:50:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:14:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Exchange the numeric length of the specified rcu_segcblist structure
> > > + * with the specified value. This can cause the ->len field to disagree
> > > + * with the actual number of callbacks on the structure. This exchange is
> > > + * fully ordered with respect to the callers accesses both before and after.
> > > + */
> > > +long rcu_segcblist_xchg_len(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, long v)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
> > > + return atomic_long_xchg(&rsclp->len, v);
> > > +#else
> > > + long ret = rsclp->len;
> > > +
> > > + smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->len, v);
> > > + smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
> > > + return ret;
> > > +#endif
> > > +}
> >
> > That one's weird; for matching semantics the load needs to be between
> > the memory barriers.
>
> Also, since you WRITE_ONCE() the thing, the load needs to be a
> READ_ONCE().
Not in this case, because ->len is written only by the CPU in question
in the !RCU_NOCB_CPU case.
It would not be hard to convince me that adding READ_ONCE() would be
cheap and easy future-proofing, but Linus has objected to that sort of
thing in the past.
Thanx, Paul
