From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:06:03 -0800 Message-ID: <20131123170603.GL4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20131122203738.GC4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131122215208.GD4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131123002542.GF4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131123013654.GG4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131123040507.GI4138@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20131123112450.GA26801@gmail.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131123112450.GA26801@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Tim Chen , Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Waiman Long , Andrea Arcangeli , Alex Shi , Andi Kleen , Michel Lespinasse , Davidlohr Bueso , Matthew R Wilcox , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:24:50PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > x86 does have that extra "Memory ordering obeys causality (memory > > > ordering respects transitive visibility)." rule, and the example > > > in the architecture manual (section 8.2.3.6 "Stores Are > > > Transitively Visible") seems to very much about this, but your > > > particular example is subtly different, so.. > > > > Indeed, my example needs CPU 1's -load- from y to be transitively > > visible, so I am nervous about this one as well. > > > > > I will have to ruminate on this. > > > > The rules on the left-hand column of page 5 of the below URL apply > > to this example more straightforwardly, but I don't know that Intel > > and AMD stand behind them: > > > > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/weakmemory/cacm.pdf > > > > My guess is that x86 does guarantee this ordering, but at this point > > I would have to ask someone from Intel and AMD. > > An additional option might be to create a user-space testcase > engineered to hit all the exotic ordering situations, one that might > disprove any particular assumptions we have about the behavior of > hardware. (Back a decade ago when the x86 space first introduced quad > core CPUs with newfangled on-die cache coherency I managed to > demonstrate a causality violation by simulating kernel locks in > user-space, which turned out to be a hardware bug. Also, when > Hyperthreading/SMT was new it demonstrated many interesting bugs never > seen in practice before. So running stuff on real hardware is useful.) > > And a cache coherency (and/or locking) test suite would be very useful > anyway, for so many other purposes as well: such as a new platform/CPU > bootstrap, or to prove the correctness of some fancy new locking > scheme people want to add. Maybe as an extension to rcutorture, or a > generalization of it? I have the locking counterpart of rcutorture on my todo list. ;-) Of course, we cannot prove locks correct via testing, but a quick test can often find a bug faster and more reliably than manual inspection. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org