linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1392918576.18779.10198.camel@triegel.csb>
Date:	Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:49:36 +0100
From:	Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 20:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

[Paul has already answered many of your questions, and my reply to your
previous email should also answer some.]

> If the consumer of an atomic load isn't a pointer chasing operation,
> then the consume should be defined to be the same as acquire. None of
> this "conditionals break consumers". No, conditionals on the
> dependency path should turn consumers into acquire, because otherwise
> the "consume" load is dangerous as hell.

Yes, mo_consume is more tricky than mo_acquire.

However, that has an advantage because you can avoid getting stronger
barriers if you don't need them (ie, you can avoid the "auto-update to
acquire" you seem to have in mind).

The auto-upgrade would be a possible semantics, I agree.

Another option may be to let an implementation optimize the HW barriers
that it uses for mo_acquire.  That is, if the compiler sees that (1) the
result of an mo_acquire load is used on certain code paths *only* for
consumers that carry the dependency *and* (2) there are no other
operations on that code path that can possibly rely on the mo_acquire
ordering guarantees, then the compiler can use a weaker HW barrier on
archs such as PowerPC or ARM.

That is similar to the rules for mo_consume you seem to have in mind,
but makes it a compiler optimization on mo_acquire.  However, the
compiler has to be conservative here, so having a mo_consume that is
trickier to use but doesn't ever silently introduce stronger HW barriers
seems to be useful (modulo the difficulties regarding to how it's
currently specified in the standard).

> And if the definition of acquire doesn't include the control
> dependency either, then the C atomic memory model is just completely
> and utterly broken, since the above *trivial* and clearly useful
> example is broken.

In terms of the model, if you establish a synchronizes-with using a
reads-from that has (or crosses) a release/acquire memory-order pair,
then this synchronizes-with will also order other operations that it's
sequenced-before (see the composition of synchronizes-with and
sequenced-before in the inter-thread-happens-before definition in n3132
6.15).

So yes, mo_acquire does that the logical "control dependencies" /
sequenced-before into account.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/