Re: Should this_cpu_read() be volatile?

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 04:57:43PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 2018, at 2:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > My patch proposed here:
> > 
> >  https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=154409548410209
> > 
> > would actually fix that one I think, preempt_count() uses
> > raw_cpu_read_4() which will loose the volatile with that patch.

> I tested the patch you referenced, and it certainly improves the situation
> for reads, but there are still small and big issues lying around.

I'm sure :-(, this has been 'festering' for a long while it seems. And
esp. on x86 specific code, where for a long time we all assumed the
various per-cpu APIs were in fact the same (which turns out to very much
not be true).

> The biggest one is that (I think) smp_processor_id() should apparently use
> __this_cpu_read().

Agreed, and note that this will also improve code generation on !x86.

However, I'm not sure the current !debug definition:

#define smp_processor_id() raw_smp_processor_id()

is actually correct. Where raw_smp_processor_id() must be
this_cpu_read() to avoid CSE, we actually want to allow CSE on
smp_processor_id() etc..

> There are all kind of other smaller issues, such as set_irq_regs() and
> get_irq_regs(), which should run with disabled interrupts. They affect the
> generated code in do_IRQ() and others.
> 
> But beyond that, there are so many places in the code that use
> this_cpu_read() while IRQs are guaranteed to be disabled. For example
> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c is full with this_cpu_read/write() and almost(?) all
> should be running with interrupts disabled. Having said that, in my build
> only flush_tlb_func_common() was affected.

This all feels like something static analysis could help with; such
tools would also make sense for !x86 where the difference between the
various per-cpu accessors is even bigger.