proposed smp_rendezvous change

[John Baldwin]

On 5/15/11 10:53 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 15/05/2011 10:12 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>> on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
>>> Hmmm, so this is not actually sufficient.  NetApp ran into a very similar race
>>> with virtual CPUs in BHyVe.  In their case because virtual CPUs are threads that
>>> can be preempted, they have a chance at a longer race.
>>>
>>> The problem that they see is that even though the values have been updated, the
>>> next CPU to start a rendezvous can clear smp_rv_waiters[2] to zero before one of
>>> the other CPUs notices that it has finished.
>>
>> As a follow up to my previous question.  Have you noticed that in my patch no
>> slave CPU actually waits/spins on smp_rv_waiters[2]?  It's always only master
>> CPU (and under smp_ipi_mtx).
>>
>
> Here's a cleaner version of my approach to the fix.
> This one does not remove the initial wait on smp_rv_waiters[0] in
> smp_rendezvous_action() and thus does not renumber all smp_rv_waiters[] members
> and thus hopefully should be clearer.
>
> Index: sys/kern/subr_smp.c
> ===================================================================
> --- sys/kern/subr_smp.c	(revision 221943)
> +++ sys/kern/subr_smp.c	(working copy)
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void (*volatile smp_rv_setup_func)(void *ar
>   static void (*volatile smp_rv_action_func)(void *arg);
>   static void (*volatile smp_rv_teardown_func)(void *arg);
>   static void *volatile smp_rv_func_arg;
> -static volatile int smp_rv_waiters[3];
> +static volatile int smp_rv_waiters[4];
>
>   /*
>    * Shared mutex to restrict busywaits between smp_rendezvous() and
> @@ -338,11 +338,15 @@ smp_rendezvous_action(void)
>
>   	/* spin on exit rendezvous */
>   	atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[2], 1);
> -	if (local_teardown_func == smp_no_rendevous_barrier)
> +	if (local_teardown_func == smp_no_rendevous_barrier) {
> +		atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[3], 1);
>                   return;
> +	}
>   	while (smp_rv_waiters[2]<  smp_rv_ncpus)
>   		cpu_spinwait();
>
> +	atomic_add_int(&smp_rv_waiters[3], 1);
> +
>   	/* teardown function */
>   	if (local_teardown_func != NULL)
>   		local_teardown_func(local_func_arg);
> @@ -377,6 +381,9 @@ smp_rendezvous_cpus(cpumask_t map,
>   	/* obtain rendezvous lock */
>   	mtx_lock_spin(&smp_ipi_mtx);
>
> +	while (smp_rv_waiters[3]<  smp_rv_ncpus)
> +		cpu_spinwait();
> +
>   	/* set static function pointers */
>   	smp_rv_ncpus = ncpus;
>   	smp_rv_setup_func = setup_func;
> @@ -385,6 +392,7 @@ smp_rendezvous_cpus(cpumask_t map,
>   	smp_rv_func_arg = arg;
>   	smp_rv_waiters[1] = 0;
>   	smp_rv_waiters[2] = 0;
> +	smp_rv_waiters[3] = 0;
>   	atomic_store_rel_int(&smp_rv_waiters[0], 0);
>
>   	/* signal other processors, which will enter the IPI with interrupts off */

Ahh, so the bump is after the change.  I do think this will still be ok
and I probably just didn't explain it well to Neel.  I wonder though
if the bump shouldn't happen until after the call of the local teardown
function?

-- 
John Baldwin