Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjqmHD-3QQ_9o4hrkhH57pTs3c1zuU0EdXYW23Vo0KTmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 21:52:13 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Martin Uecker <uecker@...raz.at>
Cc: Ralf Jung <post@...fj.de>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 
	Ventura Jack <venturajack85@...il.com>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, 
	Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, airlied@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, 
	david.laight.linux@...il.com, ej@...i.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, 
	hch@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com, 
	rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: C aggregate passing (Rust kernel policy)

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 20:18, Martin Uecker <uecker@...raz.at> wrote:
>
> This is not really related to "observable" but to visibility
> of stores to other threads.

Yes? What's the difference?

Threading is a fundamental thing. It didn't *use* to be fundamental,
and yes, languages and CPU architectures were designed without taking
it into account.

But a language that was designed this century, wouldn't you agree that
threading is not something unusual or odd or should be an
after-thought, and something as basic as "observable" should take it
into account?

Also note that "visibility of stores to other threads" also does mean
that the loads in those other threads matter.

That's why rematerializing loads is wrong - the value in memory may
simply not be the same value any more, so a load that is
rematerialized is a bug.

> It sounds you want to see the semantics strengthened in case
> of a data race from there being UB to having either the old
> or new value being visible to another thread, where at some
> point this could change but needs to be consistent for a
> single access as expressed in the source code.

Absolutely.

And notice that in the non-UB case - ie when you can rely on locking
or other uniqueness guarantees - you can generate better code.

So "safe rust" should generally not be impacted, and you can make the
very true argument that safe rust can be optimized more aggressively
and migth be faster than unsafe rust.

And I think that should be seen as a feature, and as a basic tenet of
safe vs unsafe. A compiler *should* be able to do better when it
understands the code fully.

> There would certainly be opposition if this fundamentally
> diverges from C++ because no compiler framework will seriously
> consider implementing a completely different memory model
> for C (or for Rust) than for C++.

Well, if the C++ peoiple end up working on some "safe C" model, I bet
they'll face the same issues.

> I could also imagine that the problem here is that it is
> actually very difficult for compilers to give the guarantess
> you want, because they evolved from compilers
> doing optimization for single threads and and one would
> have to fix a lot of issues in the optimizers.  So the
> actually problem here might be that nobody wants to pay
> for fixing the compilers.

I actually suspect that most of the work has already been done in practice.

As mentioned, some time ago I checked the whole issue of
rematerializing loads, and at least gcc doesn't rematerialize loads
(and I just double-checked: bad_for_rematerialization_p() returns true
for mem-ops)

I have this memory that people told me that clang similarly

And the C standards committee already made widening stores invalid due
to threading issues.

Are there other issues? Sure. But remat of memory loads is at least
one issue, and it's one that has been painful for the kernel - not
because compilers do it, but because we *fear* compilers doing it so
much.

           Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists