Le Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:49:05PM +0530, Neeraj upadhyay a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:43 PM Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Le Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 01:57:20PM +0530, Neeraj upadhyay a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:58 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > When the grace period kthread checks the extended quiescent state
> > > > counter of a CPU, full ordering is necessary to ensure that either:
> > > >
> > > > * If the GP kthread observes the remote target in an extended quiescent
> > > > state, then that target must observe all accesses prior to the current
> > > > grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once
> > > > it exits that extended quiescent state.
> > > >
> > > > or:
> > > >
> > > > * If the GP kthread observes the remote target NOT in an extended
> > > > quiescent state, then the target further entering in an extended
> > > > quiescent state must observe all accesses prior to the current
> > > > grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once
> > > > it enters that extended quiescent state.
> > > >
> > > > This ordering is enforced through a full memory barrier placed right
> > > > before taking the first EQS snapshot. However this is superfluous
> > > > because the snapshot is taken while holding the target's rnp lock which
> > > > provides the necessary ordering through its chain of
> > > > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
> > > >
> > > > Remove the needless explicit barrier before the snapshot and put a
> > > > comment about the implicit barrier newly relied upon here.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst | 6 +++---
> > > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 7 ++++++-
> > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
> > > > index 5750f125361b0..728b1e690c646 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Memory-Ordering/Tree-RCU-Memory-Ordering.rst
> > > > @@ -149,9 +149,9 @@ This case is handled by calls to the strongly ordered
> > > > ``atomic_add_return()`` read-modify-write atomic operation that
> > > > is invoked within ``rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter()`` at idle-entry
> > > > time and within ``rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit()`` at idle-exit time.
> > > > -The grace-period kthread invokes ``rcu_dynticks_snap()`` and
> > > > -``rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since()`` (both of which invoke
> > > > -an ``atomic_add_return()`` of zero) to detect idle CPUs.
> > > > +The grace-period kthread invokes first ``ct_dynticks_cpu_acquire()``
> > > > +(preceded by a full memory barrier) and ``rcu_dynticks_in_eqs_since()``
> > > > +(both of which rely on acquire semantics) to detect idle CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > > | **Quick Quiz**: |
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > index f07b8bff4621b..1a6ef9c5c949e 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > @@ -769,7 +769,12 @@ static void rcu_gpnum_ovf(struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > > */
> > > > static int dyntick_save_progress_counter(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > > {
> > > > - rdp->dynticks_snap = rcu_dynticks_snap(rdp->cpu);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Full ordering against accesses prior current GP and also against
> > > > + * current GP sequence number is enforced by current rnp locking
> > > > + * with chained smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > It might be worth mentioning that this chained smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> > > is provided by rnp leaf node locking in rcu_gp_init() and rcu_gp_fqs_loop() ?
> >
> > Right!
> >
> > How about this?
> >
>
> Looks good to me, thanks! Minor comment (ditto for the other patch) below
>
>
> > /*
> > * Full ordering against accesses prior current GP and also against
>
> Nit: "prior to current GP" ?
Thanks. On a second thought and just to make sure we don't forget why we did
what we did after a few years, I expanded some more, still ok with the following?
/*
* Full ordering between remote CPU's post idle accesses and updater's
* accesses prior to current GP (and also the started GP sequence number)
* is enforced by rcu_seq_start() implicit barrier and even further by
* smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() barriers chained all the way throughout the
* rnp locking tree since rcu_gp_init() and up to the current leaf rnp
* locking.
*
* Ordering between remote CPU's pre idle accesses and post grace period's
* accesses is enforced by the below acquire semantic.
*/
Thanks.
