Re: Questions with a powerpc64/powerpc context: relaxed use of smp_cpus in umtx_busy vs. relaxed updates to smp_cpus in machine dependent code?

On 2/13/19 2:23 PM, Mark Millard via freebsd-hackers wrote:
> Why I ask the questions below (after providing context):
> There are boot issues on old multi-processor PowerMac G5s that
> frequently hang up during cpu_mp_unleash --but not always.
> 
> 
> /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_umtx.c has the following code
> (note the smp_cpus use in the machine-independent code):
> 
> 
> static inline void
> umtxq_busy(struct umtx_key *key)
> {
>         struct umtxq_chain *uc;
>  
>         uc = umtxq_getchain(key);
>         mtx_assert(&uc->uc_lock, MA_OWNED);
>         if (uc->uc_busy) {
> #ifdef SMP
>                 if (smp_cpus > 1) {
>                         int count = BUSY_SPINS;
>                         if (count > 0) {
>                                 umtxq_unlock(key);
>                                 while (uc->uc_busy && --count > 0)
>                                         cpu_spinwait();
>                                 umtxq_lock(key);
>                         }
>                 }
> #endif
>                 while (uc->uc_busy) {
>                         uc->uc_waiters++;
>                         msleep(uc, &uc->uc_lock, 0, "umtxqb", 0);
>                         uc->uc_waiters--;
>                 }
>         }
>         uc->uc_busy = 1;
> }
> 
> The use of smp_cpus here on powerpc would be what is called
> a std::memory_order_relaxed load in c++ terms. smp_cpus
> does change during the machine dependent-code cpu_mp_unleash
> in /usr/src/sys/powerpc/powerpc/mp_machdep.c :
> 
> static void
> cpu_mp_unleash(void *dummy)
> {
> . . .
>         smp_cpus = 0;
> . . .
>         STAILQ_FOREACH(pc, &cpuhead, pc_allcpu) {
> . . .
>                if (pc->pc_awake) {
>                         if (bootverbose)
>                                 printf("Adding CPU %d, hwref=%jx, awake=%x\n",
>                                     pc->pc_cpuid, (uintmax_t)pc->pc_hwref,
>                                     pc->pc_awake);
>                         smp_cpus++;
>                 } else
> . . . 
>         }
> 
> which are relaxed stores.
> 
> [This dos not appear to be a std::memory_order_consume like
> context (no dependency ordered before usage).]
> 
> /usr/src/sys/kern/subr_smp.c does initialize smp_cpus to 1
> in its definition. (But it temporarily reverts to zero in
> the above code.)
> 
> So far I've not managed to track down examples of specific
> code (in an objdump of the kernel, say) that matches up
> using some form(s) of the following to control access
> order in the various places umtxq_busy is used:
> 
> lwsync (acquire/release/AcqRel fence or store-release [with load-acquire code as well])
> or:
> sync (a.k.a. hwsync and sync 0) (sequentially consistent fence/store/load)
> 
> Note: smp_cpus is not even volatile so, potentially, for a time a register
> could be all that holds the sequence of smp_cpus values before memory is
> updated later.
> 
> Nor have I yet found the earliest use of the umtxq_busy code. If it is
> late enough after cpu_mp_unleash, that might implicitly provide something
> that is not a local code structure.
> 
> Can anyone point me to example(s) of what controls umtxq_busy necessarily
> accessing the intended smp_cpus value?

umtxq_busy() is only called by userland synchronization primitives, such
as mutexes, condition variables, and semaphores.  Assuming
cpu_mp_unleash() is called before userland is started, umtxq_busy()
should see the correct value of smp_cpus.

However, even if umtxq_busy() sees a value of 0 or 1 when the correct
value would be greater than 1, I don't see how this could cause a
problem, since it would take the safer approach of sleeping instead of
spinning.

Best of luck,

Eric
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"