qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 3/8] qemu-thread-win32: cleanup, fix, document QemuEvent


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] qemu-thread-win32: cleanup, fix, document QemuEvent
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:31:20 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0

On 03.03.23 18:19, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
QemuEvent is currently broken on ARM due to missing memory barriers
after qatomic_*().  Apart from adding the memory barrier, a closer look
reveals some unpaired memory barriers that are not really needed and
complicated the functions unnecessarily, as well as some optimizations
that I couldn't quite prove to be correct.

Finally, the code is relying on a memory barrier in ResetEvent(); the
barrier _ought_ to be there but there is really no documentation about
it; it only affects the slow path, so make it explicit.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
---

[...]

  util/qemu-thread-win32.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/util/qemu-thread-win32.c b/util/qemu-thread-win32.c
index 69db254ac7c1..eff664ae6b31 100644
--- a/util/qemu-thread-win32.c
+++ b/util/qemu-thread-win32.c
@@ -272,12 +272,20 @@ void qemu_event_destroy(QemuEvent *ev)
  void qemu_event_set(QemuEvent *ev)
  {
      assert(ev->initialized);
-    /* qemu_event_set has release semantics, but because it *loads*
+
+    /*
+     * Pairs with memory barrier in qemu_event_reset.
+     *
+     * qemu_event_set has release semantics, but because it *loads*
       * ev->value we need a full memory barrier here.
       */
      smp_mb();
      if (qatomic_read(&ev->value) != EV_SET) {
-        if (qatomic_xchg(&ev->value, EV_SET) == EV_BUSY) {
+        int old = qatomic_xchg(&ev->value, EV_SET);
+
+        /* Pairs with memory barrier after ResetEvent.  */
+        smp_mb__after_rmw();
+        if (old == EV_BUSY) {
              /* There were waiters, wake them up.  */
              SetEvent(ev->event);
          }
@@ -286,17 +294,19 @@ void qemu_event_set(QemuEvent *ev)
void qemu_event_reset(QemuEvent *ev)
  {
-    unsigned value;
-
      assert(ev->initialized);
-    value = qatomic_read(&ev->value);
-    smp_mb_acquire();
-    if (value == EV_SET) {
-        /* If there was a concurrent reset (or even reset+wait),
-         * do nothing.  Otherwise change EV_SET->EV_FREE.
-         */
-        qatomic_or(&ev->value, EV_FREE);
-    }
+

[had the same thought on patch #2]

IIUC, the "read first" is an optimization to not unconditionally dirty the cache-line. But I assume we don't particularly care about that optimization on the reset path.

+    /*
+     * If there was a concurrent reset (or even reset+wait),
+     * do nothing.  Otherwise change EV_SET->EV_FREE.
+     */
+    qatomic_or(&ev->value, EV_FREE);
+
+    /*
+     * Order reset before checking the condition in the caller.
+     * Pairs with the first memory barrier in qemu_event_set().
+     */
+    smp_mb__after_rmw();
  }
void qemu_event_wait(QemuEvent *ev)
@@ -304,29 +314,47 @@ void qemu_event_wait(QemuEvent *ev)
      unsigned value;
assert(ev->initialized);
+
+    /*
+     * This read does not have any particular ordering requirements;
+     * if it moves earlier, we might miss qemu_event_set() and go down the
+     * slow path unnecessarily, but ultimately the memory barrier below,
+     * plus the internal synchronization of the kernel event, will ensure
+     * the check is done correctly.
+     */
      value = qatomic_read(&ev->value);
-    smp_mb_acquire();
      if (value != EV_SET) {
          if (value == EV_FREE) {
-            /* qemu_event_set is not yet going to call SetEvent, but we are
-             * going to do another check for EV_SET below when setting EV_BUSY.
-             * At that point it is safe to call WaitForSingleObject.
+            /*
+             * Here the underlying kernel event is reset, but qemu_event_set is
+             * not yet going to call SetEvent.  However, there will be another
+             * check for EV_SET below when setting EV_BUSY.  At that point it
+             * is safe to call WaitForSingleObject.
               */
              ResetEvent(ev->event);
- /* Tell qemu_event_set that there are waiters. No need to retry
-             * because there cannot be a concurrent busy->free transition.
-             * After the CAS, the event will be either set or busy.
+            /*
+             * It is not clear whether ResetEvent provides this barrier; kernel
+             * APIs (KeResetEvent/KeClearEvent) do not.  Better safe than 
sorry!
+             */
+            smp_mb();
+
+            /*
+             * Leave the event reset and tell qemu_event_set that there are
+             * waiters.  No need to retry, because there cannot be a concurrent
+             * busy->free transition.  After the CAS, the event will be either
+             * set or busy.
               */
              if (qatomic_cmpxchg(&ev->value, EV_FREE, EV_BUSY) == EV_SET) {
-                value = EV_SET;
-            } else {
-                value = EV_BUSY;
+                return;
              }
          }
-        if (value == EV_BUSY) {
-            WaitForSingleObject(ev->event, INFINITE);
-        }
+
+        /*
+         * ev->value is now EV_BUSY.  Since we didn't observe EV_SET,
+         * qemu_event_set() must observe EV_BUSY and call SetEvent().
+         */
+        WaitForSingleObject(ev->event, INFINITE);
      }
  }

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]