Re: [PATCH RFC] percpu: add data dependency barrier in percpu accessors and operations

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:56:30AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >From 2ff90ab638d50d6191ba3a3564b53fccb78bd4cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:47:02 -0400
> 
> percpu areas are zeroed on allocation and, by its nature, accessed
> from multiple cpus.  Consider the following scenario.
> 
>  p = NULL;
> 
> 	CPU-1				CPU-2
>  p = alloc_percpu()		if (p)
> 					WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(*p));
> 
> As all percpu areas are zeroed on allocation, CPU-2 should never
> trigger the WARN; however, there's no barrier between zeroing of the
> percpu regions and the assignment of @p or between testing of @p and
> dereferencing it and CPU-2 may see garbage value from before the
> clearing and trigger the warning.
> 
> Note that this may happen even on archs which don't require data
> dependency barriers.  While CPU-2 woudln't reorder percpu area access
> above the testing of @p, nothing prevents CPU-1 from scheduling
> zeroing after the assignment of @p.
> 
> This patch fixes the issue by adding a smp_wmb() before a newly
> allocated percpu pointer is returned and a smp_read_barrier_depends()
> in __verify_pcpu_ptr() which is guaranteed to be invoked at least once
> before every percpu access.  It currently may be invoked multiple
> times per operation which isn't optimal.  Future patches will update
> the definitions so that the macro is invoked only once per access.
> 
> It can be argued that smp_read_barrier_depends() is the responsibility
> of the caller; however, discerning local and remote accesses gets very
> confusing with percpu areas (initialized remotely but local to this
> cpu and vice-versa) and data dependency barrier is free on all archs
> except for alpha, so I think it's better to include it as part of
> percpu accessors and operations.

OK, I will bite...  Did you find a bug of this form?  (I do see a
couple of possible bugs on a quick look, so maybe...)

I would argue that the code above should instead say something like:

	smp_store_release(p, alloc_percpu());

I was worried about use of per_cpu() by the reading CPU, but of course
in that case, things are initialized at compiler time.

> I wonder whether we also need a smp_wmb() for other __GFP_ZERO
> allocations.  There isn't one and requiring the users to perform
> smp_wmb() to ensure the propagation of zeroing seems too subtle.

I would say "no" even if we do decide that alloc_percpu() needs
an smp_wmb().  The reason is that you really do have to store the
pointer at some point, and you should use smp_store_release() for
this task, at least if you are storing to something accessible to
other CPUs.

						Thanx, Paul

> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/percpu-defs.h | 15 ++++++++++++---
>  mm/percpu.c                 |  9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> index a5fc7d0..b91bb37 100644
> --- a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
> @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
>  #ifndef _LINUX_PERCPU_DEFS_H
>  #define _LINUX_PERCPU_DEFS_H
> 
> +#include <asm/barrier.h>
> +
>  /*
>   * Base implementations of per-CPU variable declarations and definitions, where
>   * the section in which the variable is to be placed is provided by the
> @@ -19,9 +21,15 @@
>  	__attribute__((section(".discard"), unused))
> 
>  /*
> - * Macro which verifies @ptr is a percpu pointer without evaluating
> - * @ptr.  This is to be used in percpu accessors to verify that the
> - * input parameter is a percpu pointer.
> + * This macro serves two purposes.  It verifies @ptr is a percpu pointer
> + * without evaluating @ptr and provides the data dependency barrier paired
> + * with smp_wmb() at the end of the allocation path so that the memory
> + * clearing in the allocation path is visible to all percpu accsses.
> + *
> + * The existence of the data dependency barrier is guaranteed and percpu
> + * users can take advantage of it - e.g. percpu area updates followed by
> + * smp_wmb() and then a percpu pointer assignment are guaranteed to be
> + * visible to accessors which access through the assigned percpu pointer.
>   *
>   * + 0 is required in order to convert the pointer type from a
>   * potential array type to a pointer to a single item of the array.
> @@ -29,6 +37,7 @@
>  #define __verify_pcpu_ptr(ptr)	do {					\
>  	const void __percpu *__vpp_verify = (typeof((ptr) + 0))NULL;	\
>  	(void)__vpp_verify;						\
> +	smp_read_barrier_depends();					\
>  } while (0)
> 
>  /*
> diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> index 2ddf9a9..bd3cab8 100644
> --- a/mm/percpu.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> @@ -816,6 +816,15 @@ area_found:
>  	/* return address relative to base address */
>  	ptr = __addr_to_pcpu_ptr(chunk->base_addr + off);
>  	kmemleak_alloc_percpu(ptr, size);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The following wmb is paired with the data dependency barrier in
> +	 * the percpu accessors and guarantees that the zeroing of the
> +	 * percpu areas in pcpu_populate_chunk() is visible to all percpu
> +	 * accesses through the returned percpu pointer.  The accessors get
> +	 * their data dependency barrier from __verify_pcpu_ptr().
> +	 */
> +	smp_wmb();
>  	return ptr;
> 
>  fail_unlock:
> -- 
> 1.9.3
> 

--
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/