Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] mm/numa: automatically generate node migration order

On 2/2/21 9:46 AM, Yang Shi wrote:

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:13 AM Dave Hansen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 1/29/21 12:46 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
...

quoted

quoted

 int next_demotion_node(int node)
 {
-       return node_demotion[node];
+       /*
+        * node_demotion[] is updated without excluding
+        * this function from running.  READ_ONCE() avoids
+        * reading multiple, inconsistent 'node' values
+        * during an update.
+        */

Don't we need a smp_rmb() here? The single write barrier might be not
enough in migration target set. Typically a write barrier should be
used in pairs with a read barrier.

I don't think we need one, practically.

Since there is no locking against node_demotion[] updates, although a
smp_rmb() would ensure that this read is up-to-date, it could change
freely after the smp_rmb().

Yes, but this should be able to guarantee we see "disable + after"
state. Isn't it more preferred?

I'm debating how much of this is theoretical versus actually applicable
to what we have in the kernel.  But, I'm generally worried about code
like this that *looks* innocuous:

	int terminal_node = start_node;
	int next_node = next_demotion_node(start_node);
        while (next_node != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
		next_node = terminal_node;
                terminal_node = next_demotion_node(terminal_node);
        }

That could loop forever if it doesn't go out to memory during each loop.

However, if node_demotion[] *is* read on every trip through the loop, it
will eventually terminate.  READ_ONCE() can guarantee that, as could
compiler barriers like smp_rmb().

But, after staring at it for a while, I think RCU may be the most
clearly correct way to solve the problem.  Or, maybe just throw in the
towel and do a spinlock like a normal human being. :)

Anyway, here's what I was thinking I'd do with RCU:

 1. node_demotion[] starts off in a "before" state
 2. Writers to node_demotion[] first set the whole array such that
    it will not induce cycles, like setting every member to
    NUMA_NO_NODE. (the "disable" state)
 3. Writer calls synchronize_rcu().  After it returns, no readers can
    observe the "before" values.
 4. Writer sets the actual values it wants.  (the "after" state)
 5. Readers use rcu_read_lock() over any critical section where they
    read the array.  They are guaranteed to only see one of the two
    adjacent states (before+disabled, or disabled+after), but never
    before+after within one RCU read-side critical section.
 6. Readers use READ_ONCE() or some other compiler directive to ensure
    the compiler does not reorder or combine reads from multiple,
    adjacent RCU read-side critical sections.

Although, after writing this, plain old locks are sounding awfully tempting.