Re: Writes, smp_wmb(), and transitivity?

[Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:35:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:58:32PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 09:58:25AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Some architectures provide local transitivity for a chain of threads doing
> > > writes separated by smp_wmb(), as exemplified by the litmus tests below.
> > > The pattern is that each thread writes to a its own variable, does an
> > > smp_wmb(), then writes a different value to the next thread's variable.
> > > 
> > > I don't know of a use of this, but if everyone supports it, it might
> > > be good to mandate it.  Status quo is that smp_wmb() is non-transitive,
> > > so it currently isn't supported.
> > > 
> > > Anyone know of any architectures that do -not- support this?
> > > 
> > > Assuming all architectures -do- support this, any arguments -against-
> > > officially supporting it in Linux?
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > Two threads:
> > > 
> > > 	int a, b;
> > > 
> > > 	void thread0(void)
> > > 	{
> > > 		WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
> > > 		smp_wmb();
> > > 		WRITE_ONCE(b, 2);
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > 	void thread1(void)
> > > 	{
> > > 		WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
> > > 		smp_wmb();
> > > 		WRITE_ONCE(a, 2);
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > 	/* After all threads have completed and the dust has settled... */
> > > 
> > > 	BUG_ON(a == 1 && b == 1);
> > 
> > My understanding is that this test, and the generalisation to n threads,
> > is forbidden on ARM. However, the transitivity of DMB ST (used to
> > construct smp_wmb()) has been the subject of long debates, because we
> > allow the following test:
> > 
> > 
> > P0:
> > Wx = 1
> > 
> > P1:
> > Rx == 1
> > DMB ST
> > Wy = 1
> > 
> > P2:
> > Ry == 1
> > <addr dep>
> > Rx == 0
> > 
> > 
> > so I'd be uneasy about saying "it's all transitive".
> 
> Agreed!  For one thing, doesn't DMB ST need writes on both sides?

Yes, but it's a common trap that people fall into where they think the
above is forbidden because the DMB ST in P1 should order P0's write
before its own write of y.

> But that is one reason that I am only semi-enthusiastic about this.
> The potentially locally transitive case is -very- restrictive, applying
> only to situations where -all- accesses are writes.

I think that we will confuse people more by trying to describe the
restricted case where we provide order than if we blanket say that its
not transitive. I know Linus prefers to be as strong as possible, but
this doesn't look like a realistic programming paradigm and having a
straightforward rule that "rmb and wmb are not transitive" is much
easier for people to deal with in my opinion.

Will