From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751454AbeBTJd7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:33:59 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:37554 "EHLO mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751410AbeBTJdz (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 04:33:55 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224J+DvqINx61Oepia3n+Ns0dfT+CZ4bnz7AsfkXQes5Be6EblviKA5htz8U2FaeT6OdosRJFA== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:33:47 +0100 From: Andrea Parri To: Alan Stern Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Akira Yokosawa , Kernel development list , mingo@kernel.org, Will Deacon , peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: remove rb-dep, smp_read_barrier_depends, and lockless_dereference Message-ID: <20180220093346.GA5505@andrea> References: <20180217151413.GA3785@andrea> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2018, Andrea Parri wrote: > > > > Akira's observation about READ_ONCE extends to all (annotated) loads. In > > > fact, it also applies to loads corresponding to unsuccessful RMW operations; > > > consider, for example, the following variation of MP+onceassign+derefonce: > > > > > > C T > > > > > > { > > > y=z; > > > z=0; > > > } > > > > > > P0(int *x, int **y) > > > { > > > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); > > > smp_store_release(y, x); > > > } > > > > > > P1(int **y, int *z) > > > { > > > int *r0; > > > int r1; > > > > > > r0 = cmpxchg_relaxed(y, z, z); > > > r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0); > > > } > > > > > > exists (1:r0=x /\ 1:r1=0) > > > > > > The final state is allowed w/o the patch, and forbidden w/ the patch. > > > > > > This also reminds me of > > > > > > 5a8897cc7631fa544d079c443800f4420d1b173f > > > ("locking/atomics/alpha: Add smp_read_barrier_depends() to _release()/_relaxed() atomics") > > > > > > (that we probably want to mention in the commit message). > > > > Please also notice that 5a8897cc7631f only touched alpha's atomic.h: > > I see no corresponding commit/change on {,cmp}xchg.h (where the "mb" > > is currently conditionally executed). > > This leaves us with a question: Do we want to change the kernel by > adding memory barriers after unsuccessful RMW operations on Alpha, or > do we want to change the model by excluding such operations from > address dependencies? I'd like to continue to treat R[once] and R*[once] equally if possible. Given the (unconditional) smp_read_barrier_depends in READ_ONCE and in atomics, it seems reasonable to have it unconditionally in cmpxchg. As with the following patch? Andrea --- diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/xchg.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/xchg.h index 68dfb3cb71454..e2660866ce972 100644 --- a/arch/alpha/include/asm/xchg.h +++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/xchg.h @@ -128,10 +128,9 @@ ____xchg(, volatile void *ptr, unsigned long x, int size) * store NEW in MEM. Return the initial value in MEM. Success is * indicated by comparing RETURN with OLD. * - * The memory barrier should be placed in SMP only when we actually - * make the change. If we don't change anything (so if the returned - * prev is equal to old) then we aren't acquiring anything new and - * we don't need any memory barrier as far I can tell. + * The memory barrier is placed in SMP unconditionally, in order to + * guarantee that dependency ordering is preserved when a dependency + * is headed by an unsuccessful operation. */ static inline unsigned long @@ -150,8 +149,8 @@ ____cmpxchg(_u8, volatile char *m, unsigned char old, unsigned char new) " or %1,%2,%2\n" " stq_c %2,0(%4)\n" " beq %2,3f\n" - __ASM__MB "2:\n" + __ASM__MB ".subsection 2\n" "3: br 1b\n" ".previous" @@ -177,8 +176,8 @@ ____cmpxchg(_u16, volatile short *m, unsigned short old, unsigned short new) " or %1,%2,%2\n" " stq_c %2,0(%4)\n" " beq %2,3f\n" - __ASM__MB "2:\n" + __ASM__MB ".subsection 2\n" "3: br 1b\n" ".previous" @@ -200,8 +199,8 @@ ____cmpxchg(_u32, volatile int *m, int old, int new) " mov %4,%1\n" " stl_c %1,%2\n" " beq %1,3f\n" - __ASM__MB "2:\n" + __ASM__MB ".subsection 2\n" "3: br 1b\n" ".previous" @@ -223,8 +222,8 @@ ____cmpxchg(_u64, volatile long *m, unsigned long old, unsigned long new) " mov %4,%1\n" " stq_c %1,%2\n" " beq %1,3f\n" - __ASM__MB "2:\n" + __ASM__MB ".subsection 2\n" "3: br 1b\n" ".previous" > > Note that operations like atomic_add_unless() already include memory > barriers. > > Alan >