[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1c731fdc-9383-21f2-b2d0-2c879b382687@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:11:58 +0200
From: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-model] docs: memory-barriers: Add note on compiler
transformation and address deps
Hi Paul,
on a second thought. Why can't the compiler always do, e.g.,
int *p = READ_ONCE(shared_ptr);
assert (*p == 0);
~>
int *p = READ_ONCE(shared_ptr);
int val = x; // x is some object that definitely won't segfault,
but may very well be owned by another thread right now
if (p != &x) val = *p;
assert (val == 0);
and in case p == &x, the address dependency is elided
Best wishes,
jonas
Am 10/6/2023 um 6:39 PM schrieb Jonas Oberhauser:
> Hi Paul,
>
> The "more up-to-date information" makes it sound like (some of) the
> information in this section is out-of-date/no longer valid.
>
> But after reading the sections, it seems the information is valid, but
> discusses mostly the history of address dependency barriers.
>
> Given that the sepcond part specifically already starts with a
> disclaimer that this information is purely relevant to people
> interested in history or working on alpha, I think it would make more
> sense to modify things slightly differently.
>
> Firstly I'd remove the "historical" part in the first section, and add
> two short paragraphs explaining that
>
> - every marked access implies a address dependency barrier
>
> - address dependencies considered by the model are *semantic*
> dependencies, meaning that a *syntactic* dependency is not sufficient
> to imply ordering; see the rcu file for some examples where compilers
> can elide syntactic dependencies
>
> Secondly, I'd not add the disclaimer to the second section; there's
> already a link to rcu_dereference in that section (
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt#L634
> ), and already a small text explaining that the section is historical.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> jonas
>
>
> Am 10/5/2023 um 6:53 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
>> The compiler has the ability to cause misordering by destroying
>> address-dependency barriers if comparison operations are used. Add a
>> note about this to memory-barriers.txt in the beginning of both the
>> historical address-dependency sections and point to rcu-dereference.rst
>> for more information.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> index 06e14efd8662..d414e145f912 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> @@ -396,6 +396,10 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
>> (2) Address-dependency barriers (historical).
>> + [!] This section is marked as HISTORICAL: For more up-to-date
>> + information, including how compiler transformations related to
>> pointer
>> + comparisons can sometimes cause problems, see
>> + Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
>> An address-dependency barrier is a weaker form of read
>> barrier. In the
>> case where two loads are performed such that the second
>> depends on the
>> @@ -556,6 +560,9 @@ There are certain things that the Linux kernel
>> memory barriers do not guarantee:
>> ADDRESS-DEPENDENCY BARRIERS (HISTORICAL)
>> ----------------------------------------
>> +[!] This section is marked as HISTORICAL: For more up-to-date
>> information,
>> +including how compiler transformations related to pointer
>> comparisons can
>> +sometimes cause problems, see Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
>> As of v4.15 of the Linux kernel, an smp_mb() was added to
>> READ_ONCE() for
>> DEC Alpha, which means that about the only people who need to pay
>> attention
Powered by blists - more mailing lists