On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:43:42PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:05:19AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> What is that mutex? And what locks/unlocks provide synchronization? I
> >> >> see that one uses exp_mutex and another -- exp_wake_mutex.
> >> >
> >> > Both of them.
> >> >
> >> > ->exp_mutex is acquired by the task requesting the grace period, and
> >> > the counter's first increment is done by that task under that mutex.
> >> > This task then schedules a workqueue, which drives forward the grace
> >> > period. Upon grace-period completion, the workqueue handler does the
> >> > second increment (the one that your patch addressed). The workqueue
> >> > handler then acquires ->exp_wake_mutex and wakes the task that holds
> >> > ->exp_mutex (along with all other tasks waiting for this grace period),
> >> > and that task releases ->exp_mutex, which allows the next grace period to
> >> > start (and the first increment for that next grace period to be carried
> >> > out under that lock). The workqueue handler releases ->exp_wake_mutex
> >> > after finishing its wakeups.
> >>
> >> Then we need the following for the case when task requesting the grace
> >> period does not block, right?
> >
> > Won't be necessary I think, as the smp_mb() in rcu_seq_end() and the
> > smp_mb__before_atomic() in sync_exp_work_done() already provide the
> > required ordering, no?
>
> smp_mb() is probably fine, but smp_mb__before_atomic() is release not
> acquire. If we want to play that game, then I guess we also need
> smp_mb__after_atomic() there. But it would be way easier to understand
> what's happens there and prove that it's correct, if we use
> store_release/load_acquire.
Fair point, how about the following?
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 6fd8074f1976596898e39f5b7ea1755652533906
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue Mar 7 07:21:23 2017 -0800
rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to sync_exp_work_done()
The sync_exp_work_done() function needs to fully order the counter-check
operation against anything happening after the corresponding grace period.
This is a theoretical bug, as all current architectures either provide
full ordering for atomic operation on the one hand or implement,
however, a little future-proofing is a good thing. This commit
therefore adds smp_mb__after_atomic() after the atomic_long_inc()
in sync_exp_work_done().
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index 027e123d93c7..652071abd9b4 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -247,6 +247,7 @@ static bool sync_exp_work_done(struct rcu_state *rsp,
atomic_long_t *stat,
/* Ensure test happens before caller kfree(). */
smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* ^^^ */
atomic_long_inc(stat);
+ smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* ^^^ */
return true;
}
return false;
