Re: [PATCH] arch: Introduce read_acquire()

[Will Deacon]

Hello,

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 06:57:05PM +0000, alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> In the case of device drivers it is common to utilize receive descriptors
> in which a single field is used to determine if the descriptor is currently
> in the possession of the device or the CPU.  In order to prevent any other
> fields from being read a rmb() is used resulting in something like code
> snippet from ixgbe_main.c:
> 
> 	if (!ixgbe_test_staterr(rx_desc, IXGBE_RXD_STAT_DD))
> 		break;
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * This memory barrier is needed to keep us from reading
> 	 * any other fields out of the rx_desc until we know the
> 	 * RXD_STAT_DD bit is set
> 	 */
> 	rmb();
> 
> On reviewing the documentation and code for smp_load_acquire() it occured
> to me that implementing something similar for CPU <-> device interraction
> would be worth while.  This commit provides just the load/read side of this
> in the form of read_acquire().  This new primative orders the specified
> read against any subsequent reads.  As a result we can reduce the above
> code snippet down to:
> 
> 	/* This memory barrier is needed to keep us from reading
> 	 * any other fields out of the rx_desc until we know the
> 	 * RXD_STAT_DD bit is set
> 	 */
> 	if (!(read_acquire(&rx_desc->wb.upper.status_error) &

Minor nit on naming, but load_acquire would match what we do with barriers,
where you simply drop the smp_ prefix if you want the thing to work on UP
systems too.

> 	      cpu_to_le32(IXGBE_RXD_STAT_DD)))
> 		break;

I'm not familiar with the driver in question, but how are the descriptors
mapped? Is the read barrier here purely limiting re-ordering of normal
memory accesses by the CPU? If so, isn't there also scope for store_release
when updating, e.g. next_to_watch in the same driver?

We also need to understand how this plays out with
smp_mb__after_unlock_lock, which is currently *only* implemented by PowerPC.
If we end up having a similar mess to mmiowb, where PowerPC both implements
the barrier *and* plays tricks in its spin_unlock code, then everybody
loses because we'd end up with release doing the right thing anyway.

Peter and I spoke with Paul at LPC about strengthening
smp_load_acquire/smp_store_release so that release->acquire ordering is
maintained, which would allow us to drop smp_mb__after_unlock_lock
altogether. That's stronger than acquire/release in C11, but I think it's
an awful lot easier to use, particularly if device drivers are going to
start using these primitives.

Thoughts?

Will
--
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/