From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:01:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180712120100.GA7404@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180712115249.GA6201@andrea>
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:52:49PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 02:34:21PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Simplicity is the eye of the beholder. From my POV (LKMM maintainer), the
> > > simplest solution would be to get rid of rfi-rel-acq and unlock-rf-lock-po
> > > (or its analogous in v3) all together:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Among other things, this would immediately:
> > >
> > > 1) Enable RISC-V to use their .aq/.rl annotations _without_ having to
> > > "worry" about tso or release/acquire fences; IOW, this will permit
> > > a partial revert of:
> > >
> > > 0123f4d76ca6 ("riscv/spinlock: Strengthen implementations with fences")
> > > 5ce6c1f3535f ("riscv/atomic: Strengthen implementations with fences")
> >
> > But I feel this goes in the wrong direction. This weakens the effective
> > memory model, where I feel we should strengthen it.
> >
> > Currently PowerPC is the weakest here, and the above RISC-V changes
> > (reverts) would make RISC-V weaker still.
> >
> > Any any effective weakening makes me very uncomfortable -- who knows
> > what will come apart this time. This memory ordering stuff causes
> > horrible subtle bugs at best.
>
> Indeed, what I was suggesting above is a weaking of the current model
> (and I agree: I wouldn't say that bugs in this context are nice ;-).
>
> These changes would affect a specific area: (IMO,) the examples we've
> been considering here aren't for the faint-hearted ;-) and as Daniel
> already suggested, everything would again be "nice and neat", if this
> was all about locking/if every thread used lock-synchronization.
>
>
> >
> > > 2) Resolve the above mentioned controversy (the inconsistency between
> > > - locking operations and atomic RMWs on one side, and their actual
> > > implementation in generic code on the other), thus enabling the use
> > > of LKMM _and_ its tools for the analysis/reviewing of the latter.
> >
> > This is a good point; so lets see if there is something we can do to
> > strengthen the model so it all works again.
> >
> > And I think if we raise atomic*_acquire() to require TSO (but ideally
> > raise it to RCsc) we're there.
> >
> > The TSO archs have RCpc load-acquire and store-release, but fully
> > ordered atomics. Most of the other archs have smp_mb() everything, with
> > the exception of PPC, ARM64 and now RISC-V.
> >
> > PPC has the RCpc TSO fence LWSYNC, ARM64 has the RCsc
> > load-acquire/store-release. And RISC-V has a gazillion of options IIRC.
> >
> >
> > So ideally atomic*_acquire() + smp_store_release() will be RCsc, and is
> > with the notable exception of PPC, and ideally RISC-V would be RCsc
> > here. But at the very least it should not be weaker than PPC.
> >
> > By increasing atomic*_acquire() to TSO we also immediately get the
> > proposed:
> >
> > P0()
> > {
> > WRITE_ONCE(X, 1);
> > spin_unlock(&s);
> > spin_lock(&s);
> > WRITE_ONCE(Y, 1);
> > }
> >
> > P1()
> > {
> > r1 = READ_ONCE(Y);
> > smp_rmb();
> > r2 = READ_ONCE(X);
> > }
> >
> > behaviour under discussion; because the spin_lock() will imply the TSO
> > ordering.
>
> You mean: "when paired with a po-earlier release to the same memory
> location", right? I am afraid that neither arm64 nor riscv current
> implementations would ensure "(r1 == 1 && r2 == 0) forbidden" if we
> removed the po-earlier spin_unlock()...
>
> AFAICT, the current implementation would work with that release: as
> you remarked above, arm64 release->acquire is SC; riscv has an rw,w
> fence in its spin_unlock() (hence an w,w fence between the stores),
> or it could have a .tso fence ...
>
> But again, these are stuble patterns, and my guess is that several/
> most kernel developers really won't care about such guarantees (and
> if some will do, they'll have the tools to figure out what they can
> actually rely on ...)
>
> OTOH (as I pointed out earlier) the strengthening we're configuring
> will prevent some arch. (riscv being just the example of today!) to
> go "full RCsc", and this will inevitably "complicate" both the LKMM
"full RCpc"
Andrea
> and the reviewing process of related changes (atomics, locking, ...;
> c.f., this debate), apparently, just because you ;-) want to "care"
> about these guarantees.
>
> Not yet convinced ... :/
>
> Andrea
>
>
> >
> > And note that this retains regular RCpc ACQUIRE for smp_load_acquire()
> > and associated primitives -- as they have had since their introduction
> > not too long ago.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-12 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-09 20:01 [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and remove it for ordinary release/acquire Alan Stern
2018-07-09 21:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-10 13:57 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-10 16:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1807101416390.1449-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
2018-07-10 19:58 ` [PATCH v3] " Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-10 20:24 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-10 20:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 9:43 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-11 15:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 16:17 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-11 18:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-11 16:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-11 18:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-10 9:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Andrea Parri
2018-07-10 14:48 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-10 15:24 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-10 15:34 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-10 23:14 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-11 9:43 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-11 12:34 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-11 12:54 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-11 15:57 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-11 16:28 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-11 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-11 17:50 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-12 8:34 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-12 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12 9:45 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-13 2:17 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-12 11:52 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-12 12:01 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2018-07-12 12:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12 16:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-12 17:04 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-12 17:14 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-12 17:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-12 18:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12 18:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-12 19:52 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-12 20:24 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-13 2:05 ` Daniel Lustig
2018-07-13 4:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-13 9:07 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-13 9:35 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-13 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-13 19:06 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-14 1:51 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-14 2:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-16 2:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-13 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-13 13:15 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-07-13 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-13 19:56 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-16 14:40 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-07-16 19:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-16 19:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-17 14:45 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-07-17 16:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-17 18:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-17 18:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-17 19:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-17 19:47 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-17 18:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-17 18:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-17 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-17 19:37 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-17 20:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-17 19:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-17 19:40 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-17 19:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-07-18 12:31 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-07-18 13:16 ` Michael Ellerman
2018-07-12 17:52 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-12 20:43 ` Alan Stern
2018-07-12 21:13 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-12 21:23 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-12 18:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-12 17:45 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-10 16:56 ` Daniel Lustig
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1807101315140.1449-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
2018-07-10 23:31 ` Andrea Parri
2018-07-11 14:19 ` Alan Stern
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180712120100.GA7404@andrea \
--to=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).