diff mbox series

[2/2] stop_machine: Apply smp_store_release() to multi_stop_data::state

Message ID tencent_3B1BE2B20183906E56D9E58C4AE4EBC62806@qq.com
State New
Headers
Series [1/2] stop_machine: Use non-atomic read multi_stop_data::state clearly |

Commit Message

Rong Tao Oct. 20, 2023, 2:43 p.m. UTC 
  From: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn>

Replace smp_wmb()+WRITE_ONCE() with smp_store_release() and add comment.

Signed-off-by: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn>
---
 kernel/stop_machine.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Mark Rutland Oct. 24, 2023, 11:01 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:43:34PM +0800, Rong Tao wrote:
> From: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn>
> 
> Replace smp_wmb()+WRITE_ONCE() with smp_store_release() and add comment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/stop_machine.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
> index 268c2e581698..cdf4a3fe0348 100644
> --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
> +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
> @@ -183,8 +183,10 @@ static void set_state(struct multi_stop_data *msdata,
>  {
>  	/* Reset ack counter. */
>  	atomic_set(&msdata->thread_ack, msdata->num_threads);
> -	smp_wmb();
> -	WRITE_ONCE(msdata->state, newstate);
> +	/* This smp_store_release() pair with READ_ONCE() in multi_cpu_stop().
> +	 * Avoid potential access multi_stop_data::state race behaviour.
> +	 */
> +	smp_store_release(&msdata->state, newstate);

This doesn't match coding style:

	/*
	 * Block comments should look like this, with a leading '/*' line
	 * before the text and a traling '*/' line afterwards.
	 */

See https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html#commenting

I don't think the "Avoid potential access multi_stop_data::state race
behaviour." text is all that helpful, and I think we can drop that.

In general, it's unusual to pair a smp_store_release() with READ_ONCE(), and
for that to work it relies on dependency ordering and/or hazarding on the
reader side (e.g. the atomic_dec_and_test() is ordered after the READ_ONCE()
since it's an RMW and there's a control dependency, but a plain read could be
reordered w.r.t. the READ_ONCE()). So we probably need to explain that if we're
going to comment on that smp_store_release().

Peter, might it be worth replacing the READ_ONCE() with smp_load_acquire() at
the same time? I know it's not strictly necessary given the ordering we have
today, but it would at least be obvious.

Mark.

>  }
>  
>  /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */
> -- 
> 2.41.0
>
Rong Tao Oct. 25, 2023, 12:59 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 10/24/23 7:01 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:43:34PM +0800, Rong Tao wrote:
>> From: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn>
>>
>> Replace smp_wmb()+WRITE_ONCE() with smp_store_release() and add comment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rong Tao <rongtao@cestc.cn>
>> ---
>>   kernel/stop_machine.c | 6 ++++--
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
>> index 268c2e581698..cdf4a3fe0348 100644
>> --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
>> +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
>> @@ -183,8 +183,10 @@ static void set_state(struct multi_stop_data *msdata,
>>   {
>>   	/* Reset ack counter. */
>>   	atomic_set(&msdata->thread_ack, msdata->num_threads);
>> -	smp_wmb();
>> -	WRITE_ONCE(msdata->state, newstate);
>> +	/* This smp_store_release() pair with READ_ONCE() in multi_cpu_stop().
>> +	 * Avoid potential access multi_stop_data::state race behaviour.
>> +	 */
>> +	smp_store_release(&msdata->state, newstate);
> This doesn't match coding style:
>
> 	/*
> 	 * Block comments should look like this, with a leading '/*' line
> 	 * before the text and a traling '*/' line afterwards.
> 	 */
>
> See https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html#commenting
Thanks, Mark, I'll fix the comment in next patch version.
>
> I don't think the "Avoid potential access multi_stop_data::state race
> behaviour." text is all that helpful, and I think we can drop that.
>
> In general, it's unusual to pair a smp_store_release() with READ_ONCE(), and
> for that to work it relies on dependency ordering and/or hazarding on the
> reader side (e.g. the atomic_dec_and_test() is ordered after the READ_ONCE()
> since it's an RMW and there's a control dependency, but a plain read could be
> reordered w.r.t. the READ_ONCE()). So we probably need to explain that if we're
> going to comment on that smp_store_release().
>
> Peter, might it be worth replacing the READ_ONCE() with smp_load_acquire() at
> the same time? I know it's not strictly necessary given the ordering we have
> today, but it would at least be obvious.

After I wait for Peter to reply to this message, I will write a patch 
based on Peter's suggestion.

Rong Tao.

>
> Mark.
>
>>   }
>>   
>>   /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */
>> -- 
>> 2.41.0
>>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/stop_machine.c b/kernel/stop_machine.c
index 268c2e581698..cdf4a3fe0348 100644
--- a/kernel/stop_machine.c
+++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c
@@ -183,8 +183,10 @@  static void set_state(struct multi_stop_data *msdata,
 {
 	/* Reset ack counter. */
 	atomic_set(&msdata->thread_ack, msdata->num_threads);
-	smp_wmb();
-	WRITE_ONCE(msdata->state, newstate);
+	/* This smp_store_release() pair with READ_ONCE() in multi_cpu_stop().
+	 * Avoid potential access multi_stop_data::state race behaviour.
+	 */
+	smp_store_release(&msdata->state, newstate);
 }
 
 /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */