On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:41 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:11:32AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:48 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The write here needs to use smp_store_release(), since it is paired with the > > > concurrent READ_ONCE() in psi_trigger_poll(). > > > > A smp_store_release() doesn't make sense pairing with a READ_ONCE(). > > > > Any memory ordering that the smp_store_release() does on the writing > > side is entirely irrelevant, since the READ_ONCE() doesn't imply any > > ordering on the reading side. Ordering one but not the other is > > nonsensical. > > > > So the proper pattern is to use a WRITE_ONCE() to pair with a > > READ_ONCE() (when you don't care about memory ordering, or you handle > > it explicitly), or a smp_load_acquire() with a smp_store_release() (in > > which case writes before the smp_store_release() on the writing side > > will be ordered wrt accesses after smp_load_acquire() on the reading > > side). > > > > Of course, in practice, for pointers, the whole "dereference off a > > pointer" on the read side *does* imply a barrier in all relevant > > situations. So yes, a smp_store_release() -> READ_ONCE() does work in > > practice, although it's technically wrong (in particular, it's wrong > > on alpha, because of the completely broken memory ordering that alpha > > has that doesn't even honor data dependencies as read-side orderings) > > > > But in this case, I do think that since there's some setup involved > > with the trigger pointer, the proper serialization is to use > > smp_store_release() to set the pointer, and then smp_load_acquire() on > > the reading side. > > > > Or just use the RCU primitives - they are even better optimized, and > > handle exactly that case, and can be more efficient on some > > architectures if release->acquire isn't already cheap. > > > > That said, we've pretty much always accepted that normal word writes > > are not going to tear, so we *have* also accepted just > > > > - do any normal store of a value on the write side > > > > - do a READ_ONCE() on the reading side > > > > where the reading side doesn't actually care *what* value it gets, it > > only cares that the value it gets is *stable* (ie no compiler reloads > > that might show up as two different values on the reading side). > > > > Of course, that has the same issue as WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE - you need > > to worry about memory ordering separately. > > > > > > + seq->private = new; > > > > > > Likewise here. > > > > Yeah, same deal, except here you can't even use the RCU ones, because > > 'seq->private' isn't annotated for RCU. > > > > Or you'd do the casting, of course. > > > > This is yet another case of "one time init". There have been long discussions > on this topic before: > * https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200713033330.205104-1-ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > * https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200916233042.51634-1-ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > * https://lwn.net/Articles/827180/ > > I even attempted to document the best practices: > * https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200717044427.68747-1-ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > However, no one could agree on whether READ_ONCE() or smp_load_acquire() should > be used. smp_load_acquire() is always correct, so it remains my preference. > However, READ_ONCE() is correct in some cases, and some people (including the > primary LKMM maintainer) insist that it be used in all such cases, as well as in > rcu_dereference() even though this places difficult-to-understand constraints on > how rcu_dereference() can be used. > > My preference is that smp_load_acquire() be used. But be aware that this risks > the READ_ONCE() people coming out of the woodwork and arguing for READ_ONCE(). I like my chances here (I believe we do need memory ordering in this case). I'll post a fix with smp_load_acquire/smp_store_release shortly after I run my tests. Thanks for the guidance! > > - Eric
