Message-ID: <YLoPJDzlTsvpjFWt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 13:31:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, paulmck@...nel.org,
        stern@...land.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
        j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, akiyks@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:44:00AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:12:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Usage of volatile_if requires the @cond to be headed by a volatile load
> > (READ_ONCE() / atomic_read() etc..) such that the compiler is forced to
> > emit the load and the branch emitted will have the required
> > data-dependency. Furthermore, volatile_if() is a compiler barrier, which
> > should prohibit the compiler from lifting anything out of the selection
> > statement.
> 
> When building with LTO on arm64, we already upgrade READ_ONCE() to an RCpc
> acquire. In this case, it would be really good to avoid having the dummy
> conditional branch somehow, but I can't see a good way to achieve that.

#ifdef CONFIG_LTO
/* Because __READ_ONCE() is load-acquire */
#define volatile_cond(cond)	(cond)
#else
....
#endif

Doesn't work? Bit naf, but I'm thinking it ought to do.

> > This construct should place control dependencies on a stronger footing
> > until such time that the compiler folks get around to accepting them :-)
> > 
> > I've converted most architectures we care about, and the rest will get
> > an extra smp_mb() by means of the 'generic' fallback implementation (for
> > now).
> > 
> > I've converted the control dependencies I remembered and those found
> > with a search for smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(), there might be more.
> > 
> > Compile tested only (alpha, arm, arm64, x86_64, powerpc, powerpc64, s390
> > and sparc64).
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>

> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> > index 451e11e5fd23..2782a7013615 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> > @@ -156,6 +156,17 @@ do {									\
> >  	(typeof(*p))__u.__val;						\
> >  })
> >  
> > +/* Guarantee a conditional branch that depends on @cond. */
> > +static __always_inline _Bool volatile_cond(_Bool cond)
> 
> Is _Bool to fix some awful header mess?

Yes, header soup :/ Idem for the lack of true and false.

> > +{
> > +	asm_volatile_goto("cbnz %0, %l[l_yes]"
> > +			  : : "r" (cond) : "cc", "memory" : l_yes);
> > +	return 0;
> > +l_yes:
> > +	return 1;
> > +}
> 
> nit: you don't need the "cc" clobber here.

Yeah I know, "cc" is implied.

> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/barrier.h b/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> > index 640f09479bdf..a84833f1397b 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> > @@ -187,6 +187,42 @@ do {									\
> >  #define virt_store_release(p, v) __smp_store_release(p, v)
> >  #define virt_load_acquire(p) __smp_load_acquire(p)
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * 'Generic' wrapper to make volatile_if() below 'work'. Architectures are
> > + * encouraged to provide their own implementation. See x86 for TSO and arm64
> > + * for a weak example.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef volatile_cond
> > +#define volatile_cond(cond)	({ bool __t = (cond); smp_mb(); __t; })
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * volatile_if() - Provide a control-dependency
> > + *
> > + * volatile_if(READ_ONCE(A))
> > + *	WRITE_ONCE(B, 1);
> > + *
> > + * will ensure that the STORE to B happens after the LOAD of A. Normally a
> > + * control dependency relies on a conditional branch having a data dependency
> > + * on the LOAD and an architecture's inability to speculate STOREs. IOW, this
> > + * provides a LOAD->STORE order.
> > + *
> > + * Due to optimizing compilers extra care is needed; as per the example above
> > + * the LOAD must be 'volatile' qualified in order to ensure the compiler
> > + * actually emits the load, such that the data-dependency to the conditional
> > + * branch can be formed.
> > + *
> > + * Secondly, the compiler must be prohibited from lifting anything out of the
> > + * selection statement, as this would obviously also break the ordering.
> > + *
> > + * Thirdly, and this is the tricky bit, architectures that allow the
> > + * LOAD->STORE reorder must ensure the compiler actually emits the conditional
> > + * branch instruction, this isn't possible in generic.
> > + *
> > + * See the volatile_cond() wrapper.
> > + */
> > +#define volatile_if(cond) if (volatile_cond(cond))
> 
> The thing I really dislike about this is that, if the compiler _does_
> emit a conditional branch for the C 'if', then we get a pair of branch
> instructions in close proximity to each other which the predictor is likely
> to hate. I wouldn't be surprised if an RCpc acquire heading the dependency
> actually performs better on modern arm64 cores in the general case.

jump_label / static_branch relies on asm goto inside if to get optimized
away, so I'm fairly confident this will not result in a double branch,
because yes, that would blow.

> So I think that's an argument for doing this in the compiler...

Don't get me wrong, I would _LOVE_ for the compilers to do this. This
really is just a stop-gap solution to ensure we don't get to debug 'FUN'
stuff.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists