Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/5] rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:35:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 06:43:21PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > should equally work, or ACCESS_ONCE() can't be used to RMW ?
> >
> > It can be, but Linus doesn't like it to be.  I recently changed all of
> > the RMW ACCESS_ONCE() calls as a result.  One of the reasons for avoiding
> > RMW ACCESS_ONCE() is that language features that might one day replace
> > ACCESS_ONCE() do not support RMW use.
> 
> OK, thanks.
> 
> > > Or even INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(). The comment in list_splice_init_rcu() says:
> > >
> > > 	/*
> > > 	 * "first" and "last" tracking list, so initialize it.  RCU readers
> > > 	 * have access to this list, so we must use INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU()
> > > 	 * instead of INIT_LIST_HEAD().
> > > 	 */
> > >
> > > 	INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(list);
> > >
> > > but we are going to call synchronize_rcu() or something similar, this should
> > > act as compiler barrier too?
> >
> > Indeed, synchronize_rcu() enforces a barrier on each CPU between
> > any prior and subsequent accesses to RCU-protected data by that CPU.
> > (Which means that CPUs that would otherwise sleep through the entire
> > grace period can continue sleeping, given that it is not accessing
> > any RCU-protected data while sleeping.)  I would guess load-tearing
> > or store-tearing concerns.
> 
> But the kernel depends on the fact that "long" should be updated atomically,
> and the concurent reader should see the old-or-new value without any tricks.
> 
> Perhaps we should add ACCESS_ONCE_PARANOID_FOR_COMPILER(). Otherwise when
> you read the code it is not always clear why it is uses ACCESS_ONCE(), and
> sometimes this look as if you simply do not understand it. Or at least a
> /* not really needed but gcc can have bugs */ could help in these cases.

I am a bit reluctant to add variants of ACCESS_ONCE(), but perhaps
comments about exactly what the ACCESS_ONCE() is preventing in the more
paranoid cases would be a good thing.  My fear is that the comments will
just be copy/pasted with the ACCESS_ONCE wrappers.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/