Date:	Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:20:46 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@...tec.com>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-metag@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	x86@...nel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, ddaney.cavm@...il.com,
	james.hogan@...tec.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:24:34PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 12:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >So SYNC_RMB is intended to implement smp_rmb(), correct?
> Yes.
> >
> >You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to implement read_barrier_depends() and
> >smp_read_barrier_depends(), but SYNC_RMB probably does not suffice.
> 
> If smp_read_barrier_depends() is used to separate not only two reads
> but read pointer and WRITE basing on that pointer (example below) -
> yes. I just doesn't see any example of this in famous
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and had no chance to know what you
> use it in this way too.

Well, Documentation/memory-barriers.txt was intended as a guide for Linux
kernel hackers, and not for hardware architects.  The need for something
more precise has become clear over the past year or two, and I am working
on it with some heavy-duty memory-model folks.  But all previous memory
models have been for a specific CPU architecture, so doing one for the
intersection of several is offering up some complications.  I therefore
cannot yet provide a completion date.

That said, I still suggest use of SYNC_ACQUIRE for read_barrier_depends().

> >The reason for this is that smp_read_barrier_depends() must order the
> >pointer load against any subsequent read or write through a dereference
> >of that pointer.
> 
> I can't see that requirement anywhere in Documents directory. I mean
> - the words "write through a dereference of that pointer" or similar
> for smp_read_barrier_depends.

No worries, I will add one.  Please see the end of this message for an
initial patch.

Please understand that Documentation/memory-barriers.txt is a living
document:

v4.4: Two changes
v4.3: Three changes
v4.2: Six changes
v4.1: Three changes
v4.0: Two changes

It tends to change as we locate corner cases either in hardware or
in software use cases/APIs.

> >   For example:
> >
> >	p = READ_ONCE(gp);
> >	smp_rmb();
> >	r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_rmb(). */
> >	p->b = 42; /* NOT ordered by smp_rmb(), BUG!!! */
> >	r2 = x; /* ordered by smp_rmb(), but doesn't need to be. */
> >
> >In contrast:
> >
> >	p = READ_ONCE(gp);
> >	smp_read_barrier_depends();
> >	r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */
> >	p->b = 42; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */
> >	r2 = x; /* not ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(), which is OK. */
> >
> >Again, if your hardware maintains local ordering for address
> >and data dependencies, you can have read_barrier_depends() and
> >smp_read_barrier_depends() be no-ops like they are for most
> >architectures.
> 
> It is not so simple, I mean "local ordering for address and data
> dependencies". Local ordering is NOT enough. It happens that current
> MIPS R6 doesn't require in your example smp_read_barrier_depends()
> but in discussion it comes out that it may not. Because without
> smp_read_barrier_depends() your example can be a part of Will's
> WRC+addr+addr and we found some design which easily can bump into
> this test. And that design actually performs "local ordering for
> address and data dependencies" too.

As noted in another email in this thread, I do not believe that
WRC+addr+addr needs to be prohibited.  Sounds like Will and I need to
get our story straight, though.

Will?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

commit 955720966e216b00613fcf60188d507c103f0e80
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu Jan 14 14:17:04 2016 -0800

    documentation: Subsequent writes ordered by rcu_dereference()
    
    The current memory-barriers.txt does not address the possibility of
    a write to a dereferenced pointer.  This should be rare, but when it
    happens, we need that write -not- to be clobbered by the initialization.
    This commit therefore adds an example showing a data dependency ordering
    a later data-dependent write.
    
    Reported-by: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@...tec.com>
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index f49c15f7864f..c66ba46d8079 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -555,6 +555,30 @@ between the address load and the data load:
 This enforces the occurrence of one of the two implications, and prevents the
 third possibility from arising.
 
+A data-dependency barrier must also order against dependent writes:
+
+	CPU 1		      CPU 2
+	===============	      ===============
+	{ A == 1, B == 2, C = 3, P == &A, Q == &C }
+	B = 4;
+	<write barrier>
+	WRITE_ONCE(P, &B);
+			      Q = READ_ONCE(P);
+			      <data dependency barrier>
+			      *Q = 5;
+
+The data-dependency barrier must order the read into Q with the store
+into *Q.  This prohibits this outcome:
+
+	(Q == B) && (B == 4)
+
+Please note that this pattern should be rare.  After all, the whole point
+of dependency ordering is to -prevent- writes to the data structure, along
+with the expensive cache misses associated with those writes.  This pattern
+can be used to record rare error conditions and the like, and the ordering
+prevents such records from being lost.
+
+
 [!] Note that this extremely counterintuitive situation arises most easily on
 machines with split caches, so that, for example, one cache bank processes
 even-numbered cache lines and the other bank processes odd-numbered cache

Powered by blists - more mailing lists