Message-ID: <20140905190506.GV5001@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 12:05:06 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc:	Michael Cree <mcree@...on.net.nz>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Miroslav Franc <mfranc@...hat.com>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
	linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing

On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 02:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:16:48PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:08:48PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>> On 09/04/2014 05:59 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>>> I have no idea how prevalent the ev56 is compared to the ev5.
> >>>> Still we're talking about a chip that came out in 1996.
> >>>
> >>> Ah yes, I stand corrected.  According to Wikipedia, the affected CPUs
> >>> were all the 2106x CPUs (EV4, EV45, LCA4, LCA45) plus the 21164 with no
> >>> suffix (EV5).  However, we're still talking about museum pieces here.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is correct, EV56 is the first Alpha CPU to have the byte-word
> >> extension (BWX) CPU instructions.
> >>
> >> It would not worry me if the kernel decided to assume atomic aligned
> >> scalar accesses for all arches, thus terminating support for Alphas
> >> without BWX.
> >>
> >> The X server, ever since the libpciaccess change, does not work on
> >> Alphas without BWX.
> >>
> >> Debian Alpha (pretty much up to date at Debian-Ports) is still compiled
> >> for all Alphas, i.e., without BWX.  The last attempt to start compiling
> >> Debian Alpha with BWX, about three years ago when Alpha was kicked out
> >> to Debian-Ports resulted in a couple or so complaints so got nowhere.
> >> It's frustrating supporting the lowest common demoninator as many of
> >> the bugs specific to Alpha can be resolved by recompiling with the BWX.
> >> The kernel no longer supporting Alphas without BWX might just be the
> >> incentive we need to switch Debian Alpha to compiling with BWX.
> > 
> > Very good, then I update my patch as follows.  Thoughts?
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> Minor [optional] edits.
> 
> Thanks,
> Peter Hurley
> 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > documentation: Record limitations of bitfields and small variables
> > 
> > This commit documents the fact that it is not safe to use bitfields as
> > shared variables in synchronization algorithms.  It also documents that
> > CPUs must provide one-byte and two-byte load and store instructions
>                    ^
>                 atomic

Here you meant non-atomic?  My guess is that you are referring to the
fact that you could emulate a one-byte store on pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs
using the ll and sc atomic-read-modify-write instructions, correct?

> > in order to be supported by the Linux kernel.  (Michael Cree
> > has agreed to the resulting non-support of pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/5/143.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > index 87be0a8a78de..455df6b298f7 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > @@ -269,6 +269,30 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
> >  	STORE *(A + 4) = Y; STORE *A = X;
> >  	STORE {*A, *(A + 4) } = {X, Y};
> >  
> > +And there are anti-guarantees:
> > +
> > + (*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often
> > +     generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write
> > +     sequences.  Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel
> > +     algorithms.
> > +
> > + (*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields
> > +     in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock.  If two fields
> > +     in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler's
> > +     non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one
> > +     field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.
> > +
> > + (*) These guarantees apply only to properly aligned and sized scalar
> > +     variables.  "Properly sized" currently means variables that are the
> > +     same size as "char", "short", "int" and "long".  "Properly aligned"
> > +     means the natural alignment, thus no constraints for "char",
> > +     two-byte alignment for "short", four-byte alignment for "int",
> > +     and either four-byte or eight-byte alignment for "long", on 32-bit
> > +     and 64-bit systems, respectively.  Note that this means that the
> > +     Linux kernel does not support pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs, because these
> > +     older CPUs do not provide one-byte and two-byte loads and stores.
>                                  ^
>                             non-atomic

I took this, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> > +     Alpha EV56 and later Alpha CPUs are still supported.
> > +
> >  
> >  =========================
> >  WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS?
> > 
> 

--
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