lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and update documentation
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:58:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:22:41PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:10:38PM +0100, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:45:15PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah.. that's indeed an issue! for example:
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU 0 CPU 1 CPU 2
> > > > > ===================== ========================== ================
> > > > > {a = 0, b = 0, c = 0}
> > > > > r1 = READ_ONCE(a); WRITE_ONCE(b, 1); r3 = smp_load_acquire(&c);
> > > > > smp_rmb(); smp_store_release(&c, 1); WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
> > > > > r2 = READ_ONCE(b)
> > > > >
> > > > > where r1 == 1 && r2 == 0 && r3 == 1 is actually not prohibitted, at
> > > > > least on POWER.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oops.. I use wrong litmus here.. so this is prohibitted on POWER. Sorry
> > > > for the misleading. How about the behavior of that on arm and arm64?
> > >
> > > That explicit test is forbidden on arm/arm64 because of the smp_rmb(),
> > > but if you rewrite it as (LDAR is acquire, STLR is release):
> > >
> > >
> > > {
> > > 0:X1=x; 0:X3=y;
> > > 1:X1=y; 1:X2=z;
> > > 2:X1=z; 2:X3=x;
> > > }
> > > P0 | P1 | P2 ;
> > > LDAR W0,[X1] | MOV W0,#1 | LDAR W0,[X1] ;
> > > LDR W2,[X3] | STR W0,[X1] | MOV W2,#1 ;
> > > | STLR W0,[X2] | STR W2,[X3] ;
> > >
> > > Observed
> > > 0:X0=1; 0:X2=0; 2:X0=1;
> > >
> > >
> > > then it is permitted on arm64. Note that herd currently claims that this
> > > is forbidden, but I'm talking to the authors about getting that fixed :)
> >
> > But a pure store-release/load-acquire chain would be forbidden in
> > hardware as well as by herd, correct?
>
> Yup, and since that's likely the common use-case, I think that's precisely
> the scenario where it makes sense for us to require transitivity in the
> kernel.

Agreed. And again I believe that we need to err on the side of restricting
what the developer can expect.

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-22 19:01    [W:0.344 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site