lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 16:18 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > There's an underlying problem here that's independent from the actual
    > > instance that you're worried about here: "no sense" is a ultimately a
    > > matter of taste/objectives/priorities as long as the respective
    > > specification is logically consistent.
    >
    > Yes. But I don't think it's "independent".
    >
    > Exactly *because* some people will read standards without applying
    > "does the resulting code generation actually make sense for the
    > programmer that wrote the code", the standard has to be pretty clear.
    >
    > The standard often *isn't* pretty clear. It wasn't clear enough when
    > it came to "volatile", and yet that was a *much* simpler concept than
    > atomic accesses and memory ordering.
    >
    > And most of the time it's not a big deal. But because the C standard
    > generally tries to be very portable, and cover different machines,
    > there tends to be a mindset that anything inherently unportable is
    > "undefined" or "implementation defined", and then the compiler writer
    > is basically given free reign to do anything they want (with
    > "implementation defined" at least requiring that it is reliably the
    > same thing).

    Yes, that's how it works in general. And this makes sense, because all
    optimizations rely on that. Second, you can't keep something consistent
    (eg, between compilers) if it isn't specified. So if we want stricter
    rules, those need to be specified somewhere.

    > And when it comes to memory ordering, *everything* is basically
    > non-portable, because different CPU's very much have different rules.

    Well, the current set of memory orders (and the memory model as a whole)
    is portable, even though it might not allow to exploit all hardware
    properties, and thus might perform sub-optimally in some cases.

    > I worry that that means that the standard then takes the stance that
    > "well, compiler re-ordering is no worse than CPU re-ordering, so we
    > let the compiler do anything". And then we have to either add
    > "volatile" to make sure the compiler doesn't do that, or use an overly
    > strict memory model at the compiler level that makes it all pointless.

    Using "volatile" is not a good option, I think, because synchronization
    between threads should be orthogonal to observable output of the
    abstract machine.

    The current memory model might not allow to exploit all hardware
    properties, I agree.

    But then why don't we work on how to extend it to do so? We need to
    specify the behavior we want anyway, and this can't be independent of
    the language semantics, so it has to be conceptually integrated with the
    standard anyway.

    > So I really really hope that the standard doesn't give compiler
    > writers free hands to do anything that they can prove is "equivalent"
    > in the virtual C machine model.

    It does, but it also doesn't mean this can't be extended. So let's
    focus on whether we can find an extension.

    > That's not how you get reliable
    > results.

    In this general form, that's obviously a false claim.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-02-18 19:01    [W:3.252 / U:0.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site