On 1/23/2023 5:40 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 04:24:21PM +0100, Hernan Ponce de Leon wrote:
On 1/20/2023 4:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 06:58:20AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 1/20/2023 5:55 AM, Hernan Ponce de Leon wrote:
From: Hernan Ponce de Leon <hernanl.leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
index 010cf4e6d0b8..7ed9472edd48 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static __always_inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex_base *lock)
unsigned long owner, *p = (unsigned long *) &lock->owner;
do {
- owner = *p;
+ owner = READ_ONCE(*p);
} while (cmpxchg_relaxed(p, owner,
I don't see how this makes any difference at all.
*p can be read a dozen times and it's fine; cmpxchg has barrier semantics for compilers afaics
Doing so does suppress a KCSAN warning. You could also use data_race()
if it turns out that the volatile semantics would prevent a valuable
compiler optimization.
I think the import question is "is this a harmful data race (and needs to be
fixed as proposed by the patch) or a harmless one (and we should use
data_race() to silence tools)?".
In https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/1/22/160 I describe how this data race can
affect important ordering guarantees for the rest of the code. For this
reason I consider it a harmful one. If this is not the case, I would
appreciate some feedback or pointer to resources about what races care to
avoid spamming the mailing list in the future.
In the case, the value read is passed into cmpxchg_relaxed(), which
checks the value against memory. In this case, as Arjan noted, the only
compiler-and-silicon difference between data_race() and READ_ONCE()
is that use of data_race() might allow the compiler to do things like
tear the load, thus forcing the occasional spurious cmpxchg_relaxed()
failure. In contrast, LKMM (by design) throws up its hands when it sees
a data race. Something about not being eager to track the idiosyncrasies
of many compiler versions.
My approach in my own code is to use *_ONCE() unless it causes a visible
performance regression or if it confuses KCSAN. An example of the latter
can be debug code, in which case use of data_race() avoids suppressing
KCSAN warnings (and also false positives, depending).
I understand that *_ONCE() might avoid some compiler optimization and
reduce performance in the general case. However, if I understand your
first paragraph correctly, in this particular case data_race() could
allow the CAS to fail more often, resulting in more spinning iterations
and degraded performance. Am I right?
Except that your other email seems to also be arguing that additional
ordering is required. So is https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/1/20/702 really
sufficient just by itself, or is additional ordering required?
I do not claim that we need to mark the read to add the ordering that is
needed for correctness (mutual exclusion). What I claim in this patch is
that there is a data race, and since it can affect ordering constrains
in subtle ways, I consider it harmful and thus I want to fix it.
What I explain in the other email is that if we fix the data race,
either the fence or the acquire store might be relaxed (because marking
the read gives us some extra ordering guarantees). If the race is not
fixed, both the fence and the acquire are needed according to LKMM. The
situation is different wrt hardware models. In that case the tool cannot
find any violation even if we don't fix the race and we relax the store
/ remove the fence.
Hernan
