Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: removesingle ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 00:19 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 23:02 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:32 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > > I was about to write a response, but found it to be a justification for
> > > > > > the read_barrier_depends() at the end of the loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > I forgot to mention I don't understand the read_barrier_depends() at the
> > > > > end of the loop as well ;)
> > > >
> > > > Suppose cpu0 adds to csd to cpu1:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  cpu0:                 cpu1:
> > > >
> > > > add entry1
> > > > mb();
> > > > send ipi
> > > >                       run ipi handler
> > > >                       read_barrier_depends()
> > > >                       while (!list_empty())    [A]
> > > >                         do foo
> > > >
> > > > add entry2
> > > > mb();
> > > > [no ipi -- we still observe entry1]
> > > >
> > > >                         remove foo
> > > >                         read_barrier_depends()
> > > >                       while (!list_empty())      [B]
> > >
> > > Still can't understand.
> > >
> > > cpu1 (generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt) does
> > > list_replace_init(q->lock), this lock is also taken by
> > > generic_exec_single().
> > >
> > > Either cpu1 sees entry2 on list, or cpu0 sees list_empty()
> > > and sends ipi.
> >
> > cpu0:		cpu1:
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&dst->lock, flags);
> > ipi = list_empty(&dst->list);
> > list_add_tail(&data->list, &dst->list);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dst->lock, flags);
> >
> > ipi ----->
> >
> > 		while (!list_empty(&q->list)) {
> >                 	unsigned int data_flags;
> >
> >                 	spin_lock(&q->lock);
> >                		list_replace_init(&q->list, &list);
> > 	                spin_unlock(&q->lock);
> >
> >
> > Strictly speaking the unlock() is semi-permeable, allowing the read of
> > q->list to enter the critical section, allowing us to observe an empty
> > list, never getting to q->lock on cpu1.
> 
> Hmm. If we take &q->lock, then we alread saw !list_empty() ?

That's how I read the above code.

> And the question is, how can we miss list_empty() == F before spin_lock().

Confusion... my explanation above covers exactly this case. The reads
determining list_empty() can slip into the q->lock section on the other
cpu, and observe an empty list.

> > > Even if I missed something (very possible), then I can't understand
> > > why we need rmb() only on alpha.
> >
> > Because only alpha is insane enough to do speculative reads? Dunno
> > really :-)
> 
> Perhaps...
> 
> It would be nice to have a comment which explains how can we miss the
> first addition without read_barrier_depends(). And why only on alpha.

Paul, care to once again enlighten us? The best I can remember is that
alpha has split caches, and the rmb is needed for them to become
coherent -- no other arch is crazy in exactly that way.

But note that read_barrier_depends() is not quite a NOP for !alpha, it
does that ACCESS_ONCE() thing, which very much makes a difference, even
on x86.

> And arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c:handle_ipi() does mb() itself...

Right, but arguing by our memory model, we cannot assume that.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/