Re: bit fields && data tearing

Paul E. McKenney
2014-09-05T00:17:51Z

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 03:16:03PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 12:42 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >
> > Or we could give up on the Alpha.
> >
>
> If Alpha is turning into Voyager (kept alive only as a museum piece, but
> actively causing problems) then please let's kill it.

Sorry for being slow to join this thread, but I propose the following
patch. If we can remove support for all CPUs that to not support
direct access to bytes and shorts (which I would very much like to
see happen), I will remove the last non-guarantee.

Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

documentation: Record limitations of bitfields and small variables

This commit documents the fact that it is not safe to use bitfields
as shared variables in synchronization algorithms.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 87be0a8a78de..a28bfe4fd759 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -269,6 +269,26 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
STORE *(A + 4) = Y; STORE *A = X;
STORE {*A, *(A + 4) } = {X, Y};

+And there are anti-guarantees:
+
+ (*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often
+ generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write
+ sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel
+ algorithms.
+
+ (*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields
+ in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields
+ in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler's
+ non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one
+ field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.
+
+ (*) These guarantees apply only to properly aligned and sized scalar
+ variables. "Properly sized" currently means "int" and "long",
+ because some CPU families do not support loads and stores of
+ other sizes. ("Some CPU families" is currently believed to
+ be only Alpha 21064. If this is actually the case, a different
+ non-guarantee is likely to be formulated.)
+

============ WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS?