Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1405595

Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE

From Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE
Date 2016-05-23 21:50 +0200
Message-ID <rC41r-1DP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <rAdsj-54h-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <rAfNn-6pu-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rAfNn-6pu-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rBhDs-5HD-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rC35o-13f-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Mon, 23 May 2016, Jason Low wrote:

>On Sat, 2016-05-21 at 09:04 -0700, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 05/18/2016 12:58 PM, Jason Low wrote:
>> > It should be fine to use the standard READ_ONCE here, even if it's just
>> > for documentation, as it's probably not going to cost anything in
>> > practice. It would be better to avoid adding any special macros for this
>> > which may just add more complexity.
>>
>> See, I don't understand this line of reasoning at all.
>>
>> I read this as "it's ok to be non-optimal here where were spinning CPU
>> time but not ok to be non-optimal generally elsewhere where it's
>> way less important like at init time".
>
>So I think there is a difference between using it during init time and
>using it here where we're spinning. During init time, initializing the
>owner field locklessly is normal. No other thread should be concurrently
>be writing to the field, since the structure is just getting
>initialized, so there are no surprises there.
>
>Our access of the owner field in this function is special in that we're
>using a bit of "lockless magic" to read and write to a field that gets
>concurrently accessed without any serialization. Since we're not taking
>the wait_lock in a scenario where we'd normally would take a lock, it
>would be good to have this documented.
>
>> And by the way, it's not just "here" but _everywhere_.
>> What about reading ->on_cpu locklessly?
>
>Sure, we could also use READ_ONCE when reading ->on_cpu  :)

Locking wise we should be covered with ->on_cpu as we're always under rcu_read_lock
(barrier, preempt_disable). But I'm not sure if this rule applies throughout the
scheduler, however, like it does in, say thread_group_cputime(). cpu_clock_sample()
(from posix timers) seems to mix and match being done under rcu. So ultimately I
think you're right.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by WRITE_ONCE() Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 03:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE() Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-18 16:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE() Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 19:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 19:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-18 22:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-20 00:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> - 2016-05-21 18:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-22 12:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com> - 2016-05-23 20:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-23 21:50 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-23 22:20 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-23 23:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] locking/rwsem: Protect all writes to owner by  WRITE_ONCE Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2016-05-25 03:30 +0200

csiph-web