All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	rp@svcs.cs.pdx.edu, khlebnikov@openvz.org,
	stern@rowland.harvard.edu, shemminger@vyatta.com
Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH] Add ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid compiler splitting assignments
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:56:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130115235642.GA31367@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130115181936.GA30319@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> As noted by Konstantin Khlebnikov, gcc can split assignment of
> constants to long variables (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/15/141),
> though assignment of NULL (0) is OK.  Assuming that a gcc bug is
> fixed (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29169&action=diff
> has a patch), making the store be volatile keeps gcc from splitting.
> 
> This commit therefore applies ACCESS_ONCE() to CMM_STORE_SHARED(),
> which is the underlying primitive used by rcu_assign_pointer().

Hi Paul,

I recognise that this is an issue in the Linux kernel, since a simple
store is used and expected to be performed atomically when aligned.
However, I think this does not affect liburcu, see below:

> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> diff --git a/urcu/system.h b/urcu/system.h
> index 2a45f22..7a1887e 100644
> --- a/urcu/system.h
> +++ b/urcu/system.h
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
>   */
>  #define CMM_STORE_SHARED(x, v)		\
>  	({				\
> -		__typeof__(x) _v = _CMM_STORE_SHARED(x, v);	\
> +		__typeof__(x) CMM_ACCESS_ONCE(_v) = _CMM_STORE_SHARED(x, v);	\

Here, the macro "_CMM_STORE_SHARED(x, v)" is doing the actual store.
It stores v into "x". So adding a CMM_ACCESS_ONCE(_v), as you propose
here, is really only making sure the return value (usually unused),
located on the stack, is accessed with a volatile access, which does not
make much sense.

What really matters is the _CMM_STORE_SHARED() macro:

#define _CMM_STORE_SHARED(x, v) ({ CMM_ACCESS_ONCE(x) = (v); })

which already uses a volatile access for the store. So this seems to be
a case where our preemptive use of volatile for stores in addition to
loads made us bug-free for a gcc behavior unexpected at the time we
implemented this macro. Just a touch of paranoia seems to be a good
thing sometimes. ;-)

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

>  		cmm_smp_wmc();		\
>  		_v;			\
>  	})
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lttng-dev mailing list
> lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-15 23:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-15 18:19 [PATCH] Add ACCESS_ONCE() to avoid compiler splitting assignments Paul E. McKenney
2013-01-15 23:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2013-01-16 12:50   ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers
2013-01-19 19:17     ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-01-20 20:51       ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2013-01-25 13:53         ` Paul E. McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130115235642.GA31367@Krystal \
    --to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rp@svcs.cs.pdx.edu \
    --cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.