Re: Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: How can READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() provide cache coherence?

[Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>]

On 28.02.2016 01:53, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:13:00PM +0300, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> On 27.02.2016 00:31, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> Without READ_ONCE(), common sub-expression elimination optimizations
>>> can cause later reads of a given variable to see older value than
>>> previous reads did.  For a (silly) example:
>>>
>>> 	a = complicated_pure_function(x);
>>> 	b = x;
>>> 	c = complicated_pure_function(x);
>>>
>>> The compiler is within its rights to transform this into the following:
>>>
>>> 	a = complicated_pure_function(x);
>>> 	b = x;
>>> 	c = a(x);
>>>
>>> In this case, the assignment to b might see a newer value of x than did
>>> the later assignment to c.  This violates cache coherence, which states
>>> that all reads from a given variable must agree on the order of values
>>> taken on by that variable.
>> I see how READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() can prevent compiler from
>> speculating on variable values and optimizing memory accesses. But
>> concerning cache coherency itself, my understanding is that software
>> can really ensure hardware cache coherency by using one of the
>> following methods:
>>   - by not using the caches
>>   - by using some sort of cache maintenance instructions
>>   - by using hardware cache coherency mechanisms (which is what
>> normally used)
>>
>> What kind of "cache coherency" do you mean?
> All current systems supporting Linux guarantee that volatile accesses
> to a given single variable will be seen in order, even when caches are
> active, and without using any cache-coherence instructions.  Note "a
> given single variable".  If there is more than one variable in play,
> explicit memory ordering is required.  The "volatile" is also important,
> because the compiler (and in a few cases, the hardware) can reorder
> non-volatile accesses.

Thank you for clarification. I think this was a bit confusing for me 
because I always think of cache coherence independent from high-level C 
objects like variables. For me, cache coherence is the behavior of 
system in response to CPU(s) making load/store operations to the same 
memory location.

Thanks,
Sergey