[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190613134317.734881240@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:43:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: stern@...land.harvard.edu, akiyks@...il.com,
andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
dlustig@...dia.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
luc.maranget@...ia.fr, npiggin@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.ibm.com,
peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, paul.burton@...s.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] atomic: Fixes to smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() and mips.
Hi,
This all started when Andrea Parri found a 'surprising' behaviour for x86:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190418125412.GA10817@andrea
Basically we fail for:
*x = 1;
atomic_inc(u);
smp_mb__after_atomic();
r0 = *y;
Because, while the atomic_inc() implies memory order, it
(surprisingly) does not provide a compiler barrier. This then allows
the compiler to re-order like so:
atomic_inc(u);
*x = 1;
smp_mb__after_atomic();
r0 = *y;
Which the CPU is then allowed to re-order (under TSO rules) like:
atomic_inc(u);
r0 = *y;
*x = 1;
And this very much was not intended.
This had me audit all the (strong) architectures that had weak
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic: ia64, mips, sparc, s390, x86, xtensa.
Of those, only x86 and mips were affected. Looking at MIPS to solve this, led
to the other MIPS patches.
All these patches have been through 0day for quite a while.
Paul, how do you want to route the MIPS bits?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists