From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>,
"David Daney" <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock()
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:30:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160202223034.GM6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyz0if5wB3j18jiSC6FOw6GWJLz1=J9JO+CBVmHR+eTmw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > The sorts of things I am really worried about are abominations like this
> > (and far worse):
>
> That one doesn't have any causal chain that I can see, so I agree that
> it's an abomination, but it also doesn't act as an argument.
>
> > r1 == 1 && r2 == 1 && c == 2 && r3 == 0 ???
>
> What do you see as the problem here? The above can happen in a
> strictly ordered situation: thread2 runs first (c == 2, r3 = 0), then
> thread3 runs (d = 1, a = 1) then thread0 runs (r1 = 1) and then
> thread1 starts running but the store to c doesn't complete (now r2 =
> 1).
Apologies, I should have added that the condition does not get evaluated
until all the dust settles. At that point both stores to c would have
completed, so that c == 1.
> So there's no reason for your case to not happen, but the real issue
> is that there is no causal relationship that your example describes,
> so it's not even interesting.
Because of the write-to-write relationship between thread1() and
thread2(), yes. And I am very glad that you find this one uninteresting,
because including it would make things -really- complicated.
> Causality breaking is what really screws with peoples minds. The
> reason transitivity is important (and why smp_read_barrier_depends()
> is so annoying) is because causal breaks make peoples minds twist in
> bad ways.
Agreed, which means it is very important that the various flavors of
release-acquire chains be transitive.
In addition, smp_mb() is transitive, as are synchronize_rcu() and friends.
> Sadly, memory orderings are very seldom described as honoring
> causality, and instead people have the crazy litmus tests.
Indeed, a memory model defined solely by litmus tests would qualify as
an exotic form of torture. What we do instead is use sets of litmus
tests as test cases for the prototype memory model under consideration.
It is all too easy to create a set of rules that look good and sound
good, but which mess something up. The litmus tests help catch these
sorts of errors.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-02 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-12 12:31 [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock() Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 13:31 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 14:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-11-12 14:50 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 14:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-11-12 17:46 ` David Daney
2015-11-12 18:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-11-12 18:13 ` Måns Rullgård
2015-11-12 18:17 ` David Daney
2016-01-27 9:57 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-01-27 11:43 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-27 12:41 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2016-01-28 1:11 ` Boqun Feng
2016-01-27 14:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-27 15:21 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-27 23:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-28 9:57 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-28 22:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-29 9:59 ` Will Deacon
2016-01-29 10:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-01 13:56 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 3:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 5:19 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 6:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 8:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 8:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 9:34 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 17:51 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 19:30 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 19:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-03 19:13 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-03 8:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-03 13:32 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-03 19:03 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-09 11:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-02-09 11:42 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 12:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-02 22:30 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2016-02-02 14:49 ` Ralf Baechle
2016-02-02 14:54 ` Måns Rullgård
2016-02-02 14:58 ` Ralf Baechle
2016-02-02 15:51 ` Måns Rullgård
2016-02-02 17:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-02 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 11:45 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 12:12 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 12:20 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-02 13:18 ` Boqun Feng
2016-02-02 17:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-02 17:37 ` Will Deacon
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=20160202223034.GM6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@imgtec.com \
--cc=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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.