On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:22:09AM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> +/* Return number of callbacks in a segment of the segmented callback list. */
> +static void rcu_segcblist_add_seglen(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int seg,
> long v)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
> + smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* Up to the caller! */
> + atomic_long_add(v, &rsclp->seglen[seg]);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* Up to the caller! */
> +#else
> + smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
> + WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->seglen[seg], rsclp->seglen[seg] + v);
> + smp_mb(); /* Up to the caller! */
> +#endif
> +}
I know that these "Up to the caller" comments come from the existing len
functions but perhaps we should explain a bit more against what it is ordering
and what it pairs to.
Also why do we need one before _and_ after?
And finally do we have the same ordering requirements than the unsegmented len
field?
> +
> +/* Move from's segment length to to's segment. */
> +static void rcu_segcblist_move_seglen(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp, int from,
> int to)
> +{
> + long len;
> +
> + if (from == to)
> + return;
> +
> + len = rcu_segcblist_get_seglen(rsclp, from);
> + if (!len)
> + return;
> +
> + rcu_segcblist_add_seglen(rsclp, to, len);
> + rcu_segcblist_set_seglen(rsclp, from, 0);
> +}
> +
[...]
> @@ -245,6 +283,7 @@ void rcu_segcblist_enqueue(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> struct rcu_head *rhp)
> {
> rcu_segcblist_inc_len(rsclp);
> + rcu_segcblist_inc_seglen(rsclp, RCU_NEXT_TAIL);
> smp_mb(); /* Ensure counts are updated before callback is enqueued. */
Since inc_len and even now inc_seglen have two full barriers embracing the add
up,
we can probably spare the above smp_mb()?
> rhp->next = NULL;
> WRITE_ONCE(*rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL], rhp);
> @@ -274,27 +313,13 @@ bool rcu_segcblist_entrain(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> for (i = RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i > RCU_DONE_TAIL; i--)
> if (rsclp->tails[i] != rsclp->tails[i - 1])
> break;
> + rcu_segcblist_inc_seglen(rsclp, i);
> WRITE_ONCE(*rsclp->tails[i], rhp);
> for (; i <= RCU_NEXT_TAIL; i++)
> WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[i], &rhp->next);
> return true;
> }
>
> @@ -403,6 +437,7 @@ void rcu_segcblist_advance(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> unsigned long seq)
> if (ULONG_CMP_LT(seq, rsclp->gp_seq[i]))
> break;
> WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[RCU_DONE_TAIL], rsclp->tails[i]);
> + rcu_segcblist_move_seglen(rsclp, i, RCU_DONE_TAIL);
Do we still need the same amount of full barriers contained in add() called by
move() here?
It's called in the reverse order (write queue then len) than usual. If I trust
the comment
in rcu_segcblist_enqueue(), the point of the barrier is to make the length
visible before
the new callback for rcu_barrier() (although that concerns len and not seglen).
But here
above, the unsegmented length doesn't change. I could understand a write
barrier between
add_seglen(x, i) and set_seglen(0, RCU_DONE_TAIL) but I couldn't find a paired
couple either.
> }
>
> /* If no callbacks moved, nothing more need be done. */
> @@ -423,6 +458,7 @@ void rcu_segcblist_advance(struct rcu_segcblist *rsclp,
> unsigned long seq)
> if (rsclp->tails[j] == rsclp->tails[RCU_NEXT_TAIL])
> break; /* No more callbacks. */
> WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->tails[j], rsclp->tails[i]);
> + rcu_segcblist_move_seglen(rsclp, i, j);
Same question here (feel free to reply "same answer" :o)
Thanks!
