[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zf4fDJNBeRN5HOYo@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:15:08 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>, Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, kent.overstreet@...il.com,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, elver@...gle.com,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [WIP 0/3] Memory model and atomic API in Rust
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 07:57:41PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 04:38:35PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since I see more and more Rust code is comming in, I feel like this
> > should be sent sooner rather than later, so here is a WIP to open the
> > discussion and get feedback.
> >
> > One of the most important questions we need to answer is: which
> > memory (ordering) model we should use when developing Rust in Linux
> > kernel, given Rust has its own memory ordering model[1]. I had some
> > discussion with Rust language community to understand their position
> > on this:
> >
> > https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/348#issuecomment-1218407557
> > https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/476#issue-2001382992
> >
> > My takeaway from these discussions, along with other offline discussion
> > is that supporting two memory models is challenging for both correctness
> > reasoning (some one needs to provide a model) and implementation (one
> > model needs to be aware of the other model). So that's not wise to do
> > (at least at the beginning). So the most reasonable option to me is:
> >
> > we only use LKMM for Rust code in kernel (i.e. avoid using
> > Rust's own atomic).
> >
> > Because kernel developers are more familiar with LKMM and when Rust code
> > interacts with C code, it has to use the model that C code uses.
>
> I wonder about that. The disadvantage of only supporting LKMM atomics is
> that we'll be incompatible with third party code, and we don't want to
> be rolling all of our own data structures forever.
>
A possible solution to that is a set of C++ memory model atomics
implemented by LKMM atomics. That should be possible.
> Do we see a path towards eventually supporting the standard Rust model?
>
Things that Rust/C++ memory model don't suppor but we use are at least:
mixed size atomics (cmpxchg a u64, but read a u8 from another thread),
dependencies (we used a lot in fast path), so it's not trivial.
There are also issues like where one Rust thread does a store(..,
RELEASE), and a C thread does a rcu_deference(), in practice, it
probably works but no one works out (and no one would work out) a model
to describe such an interaction.
Regards,
Boqun
> Perhaps LKMM atomics could be reworked to be a layer on top of C/C++
> atomics. When I last looked, they didn't look completely incompatible;
> rather, there is a common subset that both support with the same
> semantics, and either has some things that it supports and the other
> doesn't (i.e., LKMLL atomics have smp_mb__after_atomic(); this is just a
> straightforward optimization to avoid an unnecessary barrier on
> architectures where the atomic already provided it).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists