From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
"linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"stern@rowland.harvard.edu" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"parri.andrea@gmail.com" <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
"boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"npiggin@gmail.com" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
"dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
"luc.maranget@inria.fr" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
"akiyks@gmail.com" <akiyks@gmail.com>,
"dlustig@nvidia.com" <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
"joel@joelfernandes.org" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: Control Dependencies vs C Compilers
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:37:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3dfe7daed3c44f46a6989b6513ad7bb0@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201006114710.GQ2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 06 October 2020 12:47
> Hi,
>
> Let's give this linux-toolchains thing a test-run...
>
> As some of you might know, there's a bit of a discrepancy between what
> compiler and kernel people consider 'valid' use of the compiler :-)
>
> One area where this shows up is in implicit (memory) ordering provided
> by the hardware, which we kernel people would like to use to avoid
> explicit fences (expensive) but which the compiler is unaware of and
> could ruin (bad).
...
>
> In short, the control dependency relies on the hardware never
> speculating stores (instant OOTA) to provide a LOAD->STORE ordering.
> That is, a LOAD must be completed to resolve a conditional branch, the
> STORE is after the branch and cannot be made visible until the branch is
> determined (which implies the load is complete).
>
> However, our 'dear' C language has no clue of any of this.
>
> So given code like:
>
> x = *foo;
> if (x > 42)
> *bar = 1;
>
> Which, if literally translated into assembly, would provide a
> LOAD->STORE order between foo and bar, could, in the hands of an
> evil^Woptimizing compiler, become:
>
> x = *foo;
> *bar = 1;
>
> because it knows, through value tracking, that the condition must be
> true.
>
> Our Documentation/memory-barriers.txt has a Control Dependencies section
> (which I shall not replicate here for brevity) which lists a number of
> caveats. But in general the work-around we use is:
>
> x = READ_ONCE(*foo);
> if (x > 42)
> WRITE_ONCE(*bar, 1);
An alternative is to 'persuade' the compiler that
any 'tracked' value for a local variable is invalid.
Rather like the way that barrier() 'invalidates' memory.
So you generate:
x = *foo
asm ("" : "+r" (x));
if (x > 42)
*bar = 1;
Since the "+r" constraint indicates that the value of 'x'
might have changed it can't optimise based on any
presumed old value.
(Unless it looks inside the asm opcodes...)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-06 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-06 11:47 Control Dependencies vs C Compilers Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-06 12:37 ` David Laight [this message]
2020-10-06 12:49 ` Willy Tarreau
2020-10-06 13:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-06 14:23 ` stern
2020-10-06 14:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-06 15:16 ` Nick Clifton
2020-10-06 15:37 ` David Laight
2020-10-06 15:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-06 16:10 ` Willy Tarreau
2020-10-06 16:22 ` David Laight
2020-10-06 16:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-06 15:07 ` David Laight
2020-10-06 21:20 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-07 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-07 10:20 ` Florian Weimer
2020-10-07 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-07 17:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-07 21:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-07 21:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-07 10:30 ` Willy Tarreau
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=3dfe7daed3c44f46a6989b6513ad7bb0@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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).