Re: [PATCH for-next] RDMA/cma: Replace RMW with atomic bit-ops
From: Haakon Bugge <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-22 07:44:34
On 22 Jun 2021, at 09:34, Haakon Bugge [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 22 Jun 2021, at 01:29, Jason Gunthorpe [off-list ref] wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 03:37:10PM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote:quoted
quoted
On 21 Jun 2021, at 17:32, Jason Gunthorpe [off-list ref] wrote: On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 03:30:14PM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote:quoted
quoted
On 21 Jun 2021, at 16:35, Jason Gunthorpe [off-list ref] wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:35:53PM +0200, Håkon Bugge wrote:quoted
+#define BIT_ACCESS_FUNCTIONS(b) \ + static inline void set_##b(unsigned long flags) \ + { \ + /* set_bit() does not imply a memory barrier */ \ + smp_mb__before_atomic(); \ + set_bit(b, &flags); \ + /* set_bit() does not imply a memory barrier */ \ + smp_mb__after_atomic(); \ + }This isn't needed, set_bit/test_bit are already atomic with themselves, we should not need to introduce release semantics.They are atomic, yes. But set_bit() does not provide a memory barrier (on x86_64, yes, but not as per the Linux definition of set_bit()). We have (paraphrased): id_priv->min_rnr_timer = min_rnr_timer; set_bit(MIN_RNR_TIMER_SET, &id_priv->flags); Since set_bit() does not provide a memory barrier, another thread may observe the MIN_RNR_TIMER_SET bit in id_priv->flags, but the id_priv->min_rnr_timer value is not yet globally visible. Hence, IMHO, we need the memory barriers.No, you need proper locks.Either will work in my opinion. If you prefer locking, I can do that. This is not performance critical.Yes, use locks pleaseWith locking, there is no need for changing the bit fields to a flags variable and set/test_bit. But, for the fix to be complete, the locking must then be done all three places. Hence. I'll send one commit with locking.
Adding to that, I will make a series of this and include ("RDMA/cma: Remove unnecessary INIT->INIT transition") here. The reason is that the transitions of the QP state of a connected QP is not protected by a lock when called from rdma_create_qp() [what protects the cm_id from being destroyed whilst rdma_create_qp() executes?].
With commit ("RDMA/cma: Remove unnecessary INIT->INIT transition"), the QP state transitions on a connected QP is removed from rdma_create_qp(), and when called from cma_modify_qp_rtr(), the qp_lock is held, which fits well with fixing the unprotected RMW to the bitfields.
Thxs, Håkon
Thxs, Håkon