[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20181101173424.GU4170@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:34:24 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ralf@...ux-mips.org" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
"jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
"paul.burton@...s.com" <paul.burton@...s.com>,
"anna.schumaker@...app.com" <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
"jhogan@...nel.org" <jhogan@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, dvyukov@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] lib: Introduce generic __cmpxchg_u64() and use it
where needed
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 06:18:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 10:01:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 05:32:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:22:15PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 15:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 01:18:46PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > My one question (and the reason why I went with cmpxchg() in the
> > > > > > > first place) would be about the overflow behaviour for
> > > > > > > atomic_fetch_inc() and friends. I believe those functions should
> > > > > > > be OK on x86, so that when we overflow the counter, it behaves
> > > > > > > like an unsigned value and wraps back around. Is that the case
> > > > > > > for all architectures?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i.e. are atomic_t/atomic64_t always guaranteed to behave like
> > > > > > > u32/u64 on increment?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I could not find any documentation that explicitly stated that
> > > > > > > they should.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter, Will, I understand that the atomic_t/atomic64_t ops are
> > > > > > required to wrap per 2's-complement. IIUC the refcount code relies
> > > > > > on this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you confirm?
> > > > >
> > > > > There is quite a bit of core code that hard assumes 2s-complement.
> > > > > Not only for atomics but for any signed integer type. Also see the
> > > > > kernel using -fno-strict-overflow which implies -fwrapv, which
> > > > > defines signed overflow to behave like 2s-complement (and rids us of
> > > > > that particular UB).
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough, but there have also been bugfixes to explicitly fix unsafe
> > > > C standards assumptions for signed integers. See, for instance commit
> > > > 5a581b367b5d "jiffies: Avoid undefined behavior from signed overflow"
> > > > from Paul McKenney.
> > >
> > > Yes, I feel Paul has been to too many C/C++ committee meetings and got
> > > properly paranoid. Which isn't always a bad thing :-)
> >
> > Even the C standard defines 2s complement for atomics.
>
> Ooh good to know.
Must be some mistake, right? ;-)
> > Just not for
> > normal arithmetic, where yes, signed overflow is UB. And yes, I do
> > know about -fwrapv, but I would like to avoid at least some copy-pasta
> > UB from my kernel code to who knows what user-mode environment. :-/
> >
> > At least where it is reasonably easy to do so.
>
> Fair enough I suppose; I just always make sure to include the same
> -fknobs for the userspace thing when I lift code.
Agreed! But when it is other people lifting the code...
> > And there is a push to define C++ signed arithmetic as 2s complement,
> > but there are still 1s complement systems with C compilers. Just not
> > C++ compilers. Legacy...
>
> *groan*; how about those ancient hardwares keep using ancient compilers
> and we all move on to the 70s :-)
Hey!!! Some of that 70s (and 60s!) 1s-complement hardware helped pay
my way through university the first time around!!! ;-)
Though where it once filled a room it is now on a single small chip.
Go figure...
> > > But for us using -fno-strict-overflow which actually defines signed
> > > overflow, I myself am really not worried. I'm also not sure if KASAN has
> > > been taught about this, or if it will still (incorrectly) warn about UB
> > > for signed types.
> >
> > UBSAN gave me a signed-overflow warning a few days ago. Which I have
> > fixed, even though 2s complement did the right thing. I am also taking
> > advantage of the change to use better naming.
>
> Oh too many *SANs I suppose; and yes, if you can make the code better,
> why not.
Yeah, when INT_MIN was confined to a single function, no problem.
But thanks to the RCU flavor consolidation, it has to be spread out a
bit more... Plus there is now INT_MAX, INT_MAX/2, ...
> > > > Anyhow, if the atomic maintainers are willing to stand up and state for
> > > > the record that the atomic counters are guaranteed to wrap modulo 2^n
> > > > just like unsigned integers, then I'm happy to take Paul's patch.
> > >
> > > I myself am certainly relying on it.
> >
> > Color me confused. My 5a581b367b5d is from 2013. Or is "Paul" instead
> > intended to mean Paul Mackerras, who happens to be on CC?
>
> Paul Burton I think, on a part of the thread before we joined :-)
Couldn't be bothered to look up the earlier part of the thread. Getting
lazy in my old age. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists