On 2/26/2025 10:04 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> I was wondering if you could also point to the fastpath that this is racing >>> with, it is not immediately clear (to me) what this smp_mb() is pairing with >>> 🙁 >> It is supposed to pair with the barrier in sync_exp_work_done() but then again >> this is already enforced by the smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() chained through >> rnp locking. > You could interpret that "Order GP completion with preceding accesses" > to include preceding readers, which to your point sounds plausible. > And in that case, again as you say, the raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node() > in rcu_report_exp_rnp() provides the needed ordering. > > I think. 😉 This is for the case where readers are blocked. For the case where readers were not blocked, and we exited the RSCS, we just expect the regular QS reporting paths to call into rcu_report_exp_rnp() and similarly provide the full memory barrier (smp_mb) on the now-reader-unlocked-CPU right? Just wanted to check my understanding was correct :) Also if I may paraphrase the ordering requirement here, we do not want RCU readers to observe any modifications happening to data after the GP has ended (i.e. synchronize_rcu_expedited() has returned). Similarly, we do not want updates in the pre-existing readers to not be visible to accesses after the GP has ended. Right? thanks, - Joel
