From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, dsterba@suse.cz, ptesarik@suse.cz,
rguenther@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:38:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F2C0D8A.70103@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120202193747.GG2518@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> And I assume that since the compiler does them, that would now make it
>> impossible for us to gather a list of all the 'lock' prefixes so that
>> we can undo them if it turns out that we are running on a UP machine.
>>
>> When we do SMP operations, we don't just add a "lock" prefix to it. We do this:
>>
>> #define LOCK_PREFIX_HERE \
>> ".section .smp_locks,\"a\"\n" \
>> ".balign 4\n" \
>> ".long 671f - .\n" /* offset */ \
>> ".previous\n" \
>> "671:"
>>
>> #define LOCK_PREFIX LOCK_PREFIX_HERE "\n\tlock; "
>>
I don't see why we cant do something similar when the compiler issues
a lock on an atomic operation. I would guess we'd want to put it under
some sort of flag control (something like -fatomic-lock-list ) since
most applications aren't going to want that section. It certainly seems
plausible to me anyway.
>> and I'm sure you know that, but I'm not sure the gcc people realize
>> the kinds of games we play to make things work better.
>>
No, but someone just needs to tell us -)
>>>> We need both variants in the kernel. If the compiler generates one of
>>>> them for us, that doesn't really much help.
>>> I must admit that the non-x86 per-CPU atomics are, ummm, "interesting".
>> Most non-x86 cpu's would probably be better off treating them the same
>> as smp-atomics (load-locked + store-conditional), but right now we
>> have this insane generic infrastructure for having versions that are
>> irq-safe by disabling interrupts etc. Ugh. Mainly because nobody
>> really is willing to work on and fix up the 25 architectures that
>> really don't matter.
>
The atomic intrinsics were created for c++11 memory model compliance,
but I am certainly open to enhancements that would make them more
useful. I am planning some enhancements for 4.8 now, and it sounds
like you may have some suggestions...
Andrew
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, dsterba@suse.cz, ptesarik@suse.cz,
rguenther@suse.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:38:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F2C0D8A.70103@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120202193747.GG2518@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> And I assume that since the compiler does them, that would now make it
>> impossible for us to gather a list of all the 'lock' prefixes so that
>> we can undo them if it turns out that we are running on a UP machine.
>>
>> When we do SMP operations, we don't just add a "lock" prefix to it. We do this:
>>
>> #define LOCK_PREFIX_HERE \
>> ".section .smp_locks,\"a\"\n" \
>> ".balign 4\n" \
>> ".long 671f - .\n" /* offset */ \
>> ".previous\n" \
>> "671:"
>>
>> #define LOCK_PREFIX LOCK_PREFIX_HERE "\n\tlock; "
>>
I don't see why we cant do something similar when the compiler issues
a lock on an atomic operation. I would guess we'd want to put it under
some sort of flag control (something like -fatomic-lock-list ) since
most applications aren't going to want that section. It certainly seems
plausible to me anyway.
>> and I'm sure you know that, but I'm not sure the gcc people realize
>> the kinds of games we play to make things work better.
>>
No, but someone just needs to tell us -)
>>>> We need both variants in the kernel. If the compiler generates one of
>>>> them for us, that doesn't really much help.
>>> I must admit that the non-x86 per-CPU atomics are, ummm, "interesting".
>> Most non-x86 cpu's would probably be better off treating them the same
>> as smp-atomics (load-locked + store-conditional), but right now we
>> have this insane generic infrastructure for having versions that are
>> irq-safe by disabling interrupts etc. Ugh. Mainly because nobody
>> really is willing to work on and fix up the 25 architectures that
>> really don't matter.
>
The atomic intrinsics were created for c++11 memory model compliance,
but I am certainly open to enhancements that would make them more
useful. I am planning some enhancements for 4.8 now, and it sounds
like you may have some suggestions...
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-03 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 134+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-01 15:19 Memory corruption due to word sharing Jan Kara
2012-02-01 15:19 ` Jan Kara
2012-02-01 15:34 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-02-01 15:34 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-02-01 16:37 ` Colin Walters
2012-02-01 16:37 ` Colin Walters
2012-02-01 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 17:11 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-02-01 17:11 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-02-01 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 17:41 ` Michael Matz
2012-02-01 17:41 ` Michael Matz
2012-02-01 18:09 ` David Miller
2012-02-01 18:09 ` David Miller
2012-02-01 18:45 ` Jeff Law
2012-02-01 18:45 ` Jeff Law
2012-02-01 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 15:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-02-02 15:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-02-01 18:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 18:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 19:04 ` Peter Bergner
2012-02-01 19:04 ` Peter Bergner
2012-02-01 18:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 18:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 9:35 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 9:35 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 9:37 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 9:37 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 13:43 ` Michael Matz
2012-02-02 13:43 ` Michael Matz
2012-02-01 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 17:42 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 17:42 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 19:40 ` Jakub Jelinek
2012-02-01 19:40 ` Jakub Jelinek
2012-02-01 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 20:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 20:16 ` Jakub Jelinek
2012-02-01 20:16 ` Jakub Jelinek
2012-02-01 20:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 20:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 15:58 ` Aldy Hernandez
2012-02-02 15:58 ` Aldy Hernandez
2012-02-02 16:28 ` Michael Matz
2012-02-02 16:28 ` Michael Matz
2012-02-02 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 20:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 20:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 9:46 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 9:46 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-01 19:44 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-01 19:44 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-01 19:54 ` Jeff Law
2012-02-01 19:54 ` Jeff Law
2012-02-01 19:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 19:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 19:58 ` Alan Cox
2012-02-01 19:58 ` Alan Cox
2012-02-01 20:41 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 20:41 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 21:24 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 21:24 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 21:25 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-01 21:25 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-01 22:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 22:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-01 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-01 23:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 23:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-02 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-02 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 19:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-02 19:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-02 19:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-03 16:38 ` Andrew MacLeod [this message]
2012-02-03 16:38 ` Andrew MacLeod
2012-02-03 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-03 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-03 19:16 ` Andrew MacLeod
2012-02-03 19:16 ` Andrew MacLeod
2012-02-03 20:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-03 20:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-03 20:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-03 20:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-02-06 15:38 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-06 15:38 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-10 19:27 ` Richard Henderson
2012-02-10 19:27 ` Richard Henderson
2012-02-02 11:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-02-02 11:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-02-01 21:04 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-01 21:04 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-02 9:28 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2012-02-02 9:28 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2012-02-01 17:08 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 17:08 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 20:53 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 20:53 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 21:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 21:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-02-01 21:37 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 21:37 ` Torvald Riegel
2012-02-01 22:18 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-01 22:18 ` Boehm, Hans
2012-02-01 17:52 ` Dennis Clarke
2012-02-01 17:52 ` Dennis Clarke
2012-02-02 11:11 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2012-02-02 11:11 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2012-02-02 11:24 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 11:24 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 11:13 ` David Sterba
2012-02-02 11:13 ` David Sterba
2012-02-02 11:23 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-02 11:23 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-03 6:45 ` DJ Delorie
2012-02-03 6:45 ` DJ Delorie
2012-02-03 9:37 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-03 9:37 ` Richard Guenther
2012-02-03 10:03 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
2012-02-03 10:03 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
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=4F2C0D8A.70103@redhat.com \
--to=amacleod@redhat.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ptesarik@suse.cz \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=triegel@redhat.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.