lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
    On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
    > xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3556@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
    > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
    >
    > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:55:08PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
    > > > xagsmtp2.20140303190831.9500@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
    > > > X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at UK1VSC)
    > > >
    > > > On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 16:50 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > > > +o Do not use the results from the boolean "&&" and "||" when
    > > > > + dereferencing. For example, the following (rather improbable)
    > > > > + code is buggy:
    > > > > +
    > > > > + int a[2];
    > > > > + int index;
    > > > > + int force_zero_index = 1;
    > > > > +
    > > > > + ...
    > > > > +
    > > > > + r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
    > > > > + r2 = a[r1 && force_zero_index]; /* BUGGY!!! */
    > > > > +
    > > > > + The reason this is buggy is that "&&" and "||" are often compiled
    > > > > + using branches. While weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC
    > > > > + do order stores after such branches, they can speculate loads,
    > > > > + which can result in misordering bugs.
    > > > > +
    > > > > +o Do not use the results from relational operators ("==", "!=",
    > > > > + ">", ">=", "<", or "<=") when dereferencing. For example,
    > > > > + the following (quite strange) code is buggy:
    > > > > +
    > > > > + int a[2];
    > > > > + int index;
    > > > > + int flip_index = 0;
    > > > > +
    > > > > + ...
    > > > > +
    > > > > + r1 = rcu_dereference(i1)
    > > > > + r2 = a[r1 != flip_index]; /* BUGGY!!! */
    > > > > +
    > > > > + As before, the reason this is buggy is that relational operators
    > > > > + are often compiled using branches. And as before, although
    > > > > + weak-memory machines such as ARM or PowerPC do order stores
    > > > > + after such branches, but can speculate loads, which can again
    > > > > + result in misordering bugs.
    > > >
    > > > Those two would be allowed by the wording I have recently proposed,
    > > > AFAICS. r1 != flip_index would result in two possible values (unless
    > > > there are further constraints due to the type of r1 and the values that
    > > > flip_index can have).
    > >
    > > And I am OK with the value_dep_preserving type providing more/better
    > > guarantees than we get by default from current compilers.
    > >
    > > One question, though. Suppose that the code did not want a value
    > > dependency to be tracked through a comparison operator. What does
    > > the developer do in that case? (The reason I ask is that I have
    > > not yet found a use case in the Linux kernel that expects a value
    > > dependency to be tracked through a comparison.)
    >
    > Hmm. I suppose use an explicit cast to non-vdp before or after the
    > comparison?

    That should work well assuming that things like "if", "while", and "?:"
    conditions are happy to take a vdp. This assumes that p->a only returns
    vdp if field "a" is declared vdp, otherwise we have vdps running wild
    through the program. ;-)

    The other thing that can happen is that a vdp can get handed off to
    another synchronization mechanism, for example, to reference counting:

    p = atomic_load_explicit(&gp, memory_order_consume);
    if (do_something_with(p->a)) {
    /* fast path protected by RCU. */
    return 0;
    }
    if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&p->refcnt) {
    /* slow path protected by reference counting. */
    return do_something_else_with((struct foo *)p); /* CHANGE */
    }
    /* Needed slow path, but raced with deletion. */
    return -EAGAIN;

    I am guessing that the cast ends the vdp. Is that the case?

    Thanx, Paul



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-03-04 20:21    [W:4.714 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site