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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1546389

Re: Perf hotplug lockup in v4.9-rc8

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 09:45:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 01:42:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > What are you trying to order here?
> > 
> > I suppose something like this:
> > 
> > 
> > CPU0		CPU1		CPU2
> > 
> > 		(current == t)
> > 
> > t->perf_event_ctxp[] = ctx;
> > smp_mb();
> > cpu = task_cpu(t);
> > 
> > 		switch(t, n);
> > 				migrate(t, 2);
> > 				switch(p, t);
> > 
> > 				ctx = t->perf_event_ctxp[]; // must not be NULL
> > 
> 
> So I think I can cast the above into a test like:
> 
>   W[x] = 1                W[y] = 1                R[z] = 1
>   mb                      mb                      mb
>   R[y] = 0                W[z] = 1                R[x] = 0
> 
> Where x is the perf_event_ctxp[], y is our task's cpu and z is our task
> being placed on the rq of cpu2.
> 
> See also commit: 8643cda549ca ("sched/core, locking: Document
> Program-Order guarantees"), Independent of which cpu initiates the
> migration between CPU1 and CPU2 there is ordering between the CPUs.

I think that when we assume RCpc locks, the above CPU1 mb ends up being
something like an smp_wmb() (ie. non transitive). CPU2 needs to do a
context switch between observing the task on its runqueue and getting to
switching in perf-events for the task, which keeps that a full mb.

Now, if only this model would have locks in ;-)

> This would then translate into something like:
> 
>   C C-peterz
> 
>   {
>   }
> 
>   P0(int *x, int *y)
>   {
> 	  int r1;
> 
> 	  WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> 	  smp_mb();
> 	  r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
>   }
> 
>   P1(int *y, int *z)
>   {
> 	  WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> 	  smp_mb();

And this modified to: smp_wmb()

> 	  WRITE_ONCE(*z, 1);
>   }
> 
>   P2(int *x, int *z)
>   {
> 	  int r1;
> 	  int r2;
> 
> 	  r1 = READ_ONCE(*z);
> 	  smp_mb();
> 	  r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
>   }
> 
>   exists
>   (0:r1=0 /\ 2:r1=1 /\ 2:r2=0)

Still results in the same outcome.

If however we change P2's barrier into a smp_rmb() it does become
possible, but as said above, there's a context switch in between which
implies a full barrier so no worries.

Similar if I replace everything z with smp_store_release() and
smp_load_acquire().


Of course, its entirely possible the litmus test doesn't reflect
reality, I still find it somewhat hard to write these things.

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

Thread

Re: Perf hotplug lockup in v4.9-rc8 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-12-12 12:50 +0100
  Re: Perf hotplug lockup in v4.9-rc8 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-12 13:50 +0100
    Re: Perf hotplug lockup in v4.9-rc8 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-22 09:50 +0100
      Re: Perf hotplug lockup in v4.9-rc8 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-22 15:10 +0100
        Re: Perf hotplug lockup in v4.9-rc8 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-12-22 17:40 +0100

csiph-web