linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Writes, smp_wmb(), and transitivity?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:35:12 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160215203512.GL6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160215185832.GQ6298@arm.com>

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:
> > Hello!
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> > 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?

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.

							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-15 20:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-15 17:58 Writes, smp_wmb(), and transitivity? Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-15 18:58 ` Will Deacon
2016-02-15 20:35   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2016-02-16  9:53     ` Will Deacon
2016-02-16 11:13       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-02-16 18:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-02-16 19:36   ` 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=20160215203512.GL6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).