[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140708153117.GJ4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:31:17 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] documentation: Add acquire/release
barriers to pairing rules
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 09:59:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:24:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > It is possible to pair acquire and release barriers with other barriers,
> > so this commit adds them to the list in the SMP barrier pairing section.
> >
> > Reported-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
>
> > +A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier,
> > +acquire barrier, release barrier, or read barrier, though a general
> > +barrier would also be viable.
>
> Similarly a read barrier or a data
> > +dependency barrier should always be paired with at least a write barrier,
> > +an acquire barrier, or a release barrier, though, again, a general
> > +barrier is viable:
>
> When I first read the Changelog I though you were going to add things
> like:
>
> An acquire barrier should be paired with a release barrier, however
> .... barrier is also viable.
>
> A release barrier should be paired with an acquire barrier,... etc.
>
> Now the above does seem to imply such rules but it isn't explicit in
> them, since it only lists the requirements for read/write. Now since the
> entire thing is indeed symmetric the implications are fairly strong,
> still.
Good point, how about the following?
General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair
with most other types of barriers, albeit without transitivity.
An acquire barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also
pair with other barriers, including of course general barriers.
A write barrier pairs with a data dependency barrier, an acquire
barrier, a release barrier, a read barrier, or a general barrier.
Similarly a read barrier or a data dependency barrier pairs
with a write barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier,
or a general barrier:
> Also, it might be good to have a section on the ramifications of pairing
> acquire/release with other than themselves, I have the feeling there's
> subtle things there.
It can get quite subtle. For the time being, I am dodging this subtlety
by saying that only general barriers provide transitivity (see the
"TRANSITIVITY" section).
To give but one example of the subtlety, given X, Y, and Z all initially
zero where it matters:
X=2; Y=2; Z=2;
smp_wmb(); smp_wmb(); smp_wmb();
Y=1; Z=1; X=1;
BUG_ON(X==2 && Y==2 && Z==2); /* Never triggers. */
But:
X=2; Y=2; Z=2;
smp_wmb(); smp_wmb(); smp_mb();
Y=1; Z=1; r1=X;
BUG_ON(r1==0 && Y==2 && Z==2); /* Can trigger!!! */
Maybe some day we should capture this subtlety in memory-barriers.txt,
but we will first need a new generation of small children who are not
scared by the current document. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists