Message ID | Zn1O2qKaIVOXniYH@pavilion.home (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | 33c0860bf7e7ace39eba96f51cc6d898ab253202 |
Headers | show |
Series | None | expand |
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:36:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > When the grace period kthread checks the extended quiescent state > counter of a CPU, full ordering is necessary to ensure that either: Just to make sure that I understand... I need to replace these commits in -rcu: da979d0162fc6 rcu: Remove full ordering on second EQS snapshot 6411f4185f657 rcu: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first EQS snapshot dec56ca5f1c34 rcu/exp: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first EQS snapshot With these three patches, and keep these three commits as they are? d43a302fc08a5 rcu: Remove full memory barrier on boot time eqs sanity check b1c36aa90cbf1 rcu: Remove full memory barrier on RCU stall printout 64d68f1d53f77 rcu/exp: Remove redundant full memory barrier at the end of GP Thanx, Paul > * If the GP kthread observes the remote target in an extended quiescent > state, then that target must observe all accesses prior to the current > grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once > it exits that extended quiescent state. > > or: > > * If the GP kthread observes the remote target NOT in an extended > quiescent state, then the target further entering in an extended > quiescent state must observe all accesses prior to the current > grace period, including the current grace period sequence number, once > it enters that extended quiescent state. > > This ordering is enforced through a full memory barrier placed right > before taking the first EQS snapshot. However this is superfluous > because the snapshot is taken while holding the target's rnp lock which > provides the necessary ordering through its chain of > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(). > > Remove the needless explicit barrier before the snapshot and put a > comment about the implicit barrier newly relied upon here. > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> > Reviewed-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@kernel.org> > --- > kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 16 +++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h > index 8a1d9c8bd9f7..1dbad2442e8d 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h > @@ -357,7 +357,21 @@ static void __sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus(struct rcu_exp_work *rewp) > !(rnp->qsmaskinitnext & mask)) { > mask_ofl_test |= mask; > } else { > - snap = rcu_dynticks_snap(cpu); > + /* > + * Full ordering between remote CPU's post idle accesses > + * and updater's accesses prior to current GP (and also > + * the started GP sequence number) is enforced by > + * rcu_seq_start() implicit barrier, relayed by kworkers > + * locking and even further by smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() > + * barriers chained all the way throughout the rnp locking > + * tree since sync_exp_reset_tree() and up to the current > + * leaf rnp locking. > + * > + * Ordering between remote CPU's pre idle accesses and > + * post grace period updater's accesses is enforced by the > + * below acquire semantic. > + */ > + snap = ct_dynticks_cpu_acquire(cpu); > if (rcu_dynticks_in_eqs(snap)) > mask_ofl_test |= mask; > else > -- > 2.45.2 >
Le Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:53:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:36:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > When the grace period kthread checks the extended quiescent state > > counter of a CPU, full ordering is necessary to ensure that either: > > Just to make sure that I understand... > > I need to replace these commits in -rcu: > > da979d0162fc6 rcu: Remove full ordering on second EQS snapshot > 6411f4185f657 rcu: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first EQS snapshot > dec56ca5f1c34 rcu/exp: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first EQS snapshot > > With these three patches, and keep these three commits as they are? > > d43a302fc08a5 rcu: Remove full memory barrier on boot time eqs sanity check > b1c36aa90cbf1 rcu: Remove full memory barrier on RCU stall printout > 64d68f1d53f77 rcu/exp: Remove redundant full memory barrier at the end of GP Exactly! Those were the precisions I forgot to mention. Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 01:20:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Le Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:53:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:36:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > When the grace period kthread checks the extended quiescent state > > > counter of a CPU, full ordering is necessary to ensure that either: > > > > Just to make sure that I understand... > > > > I need to replace these commits in -rcu: > > > > da979d0162fc6 rcu: Remove full ordering on second EQS snapshot > > 6411f4185f657 rcu: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first EQS snapshot > > dec56ca5f1c34 rcu/exp: Remove superfluous full memory barrier upon first EQS snapshot > > > > With these three patches, and keep these three commits as they are? > > > > d43a302fc08a5 rcu: Remove full memory barrier on boot time eqs sanity check > > b1c36aa90cbf1 rcu: Remove full memory barrier on RCU stall printout > > 64d68f1d53f77 rcu/exp: Remove redundant full memory barrier at the end of GP > > Exactly! Those were the precisions I forgot to mention. Done, and started testing. If all goes well, this might make tomorrow's -next. Thanx, Paul
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h index 8a1d9c8bd9f7..1dbad2442e8d 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h @@ -357,7 +357,21 @@ static void __sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus(struct rcu_exp_work *rewp) !(rnp->qsmaskinitnext & mask)) { mask_ofl_test |= mask; } else { - snap = rcu_dynticks_snap(cpu); + /* + * Full ordering between remote CPU's post idle accesses + * and updater's accesses prior to current GP (and also + * the started GP sequence number) is enforced by + * rcu_seq_start() implicit barrier, relayed by kworkers + * locking and even further by smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() + * barriers chained all the way throughout the rnp locking + * tree since sync_exp_reset_tree() and up to the current + * leaf rnp locking. + * + * Ordering between remote CPU's pre idle accesses and + * post grace period updater's accesses is enforced by the + * below acquire semantic. + */ + snap = ct_dynticks_cpu_acquire(cpu); if (rcu_dynticks_in_eqs(snap)) mask_ofl_test |= mask; else