lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 09:53:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/04/21 09:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:51:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 16/04/21 09:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > Well, the obvious example would be seqlocks. C11 can't do them
> > >
> > > Sure it can. C11 requires annotating with (the equivalent of) READ_ONCE all
> > > reads of seqlock-protected fields, but the memory model supports seqlocks
> > > just fine.
> >
> > How does that help?
> >
> > IIRC there's two problems, one on each side the lock. On the write side
> > we have:
> >
> > seq++;
> > smp_wmb();
> > X = r;
> > Y = r;
> > smp_wmb();
> > seq++;
> >
> > Which C11 simply cannot do right because it does't have wmb.
>
> It has atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release), and
> atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_acquire) on the read side.

https://godbolt.org/z/85xoPxeE5

void writer(void)
{
atomic_store_explicit(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_relaxed);
atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_acquire);

X = 1;
Y = 2;

atomic_store_explicit(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_release);
}

gives:

writer:
adrp x1, .LANCHOR0
add x0, x1, :lo12:.LANCHOR0
ldr w2, [x1, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
add w2, w2, 1
str w2, [x0]
dmb ishld
ldr w1, [x1, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
mov w3, 1
mov w2, 2
stp w3, w2, [x0, 4]
add w1, w1, w3
stlr w1, [x0]
ret

Which, afaict, is completely buggered. What it seems to be doing is
turning the seq load into a load-acquire, but what we really need is to
make sure the seq store (increment) is ordered before the other stores.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-19 10:27    [W:0.192 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site