From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753605AbaBQV1L (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:27:11 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:44679 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753083AbaBQV1D (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:27:03 -0500 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, sbw@mit.edu, "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 5/6] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Need barriers() for some control dependencies Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:26:52 -0800 Message-Id: <1392672413-5114-5-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.1.5 In-Reply-To: <1392672413-5114-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140217212625.GA4083@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1392672413-5114-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14021721-0928-0000-0000-000006C2FE5D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Paul E. McKenney" Current compilers can "speculate" stores in the case where both legs of the "if" statement start with identical stores. Because the stores are identical, the compiler knows that the store will unconditionally execute regardless of the "if" condition, and so the compiler is within its rights to hoist the store to precede the condition. Such hoisting destroys the control-dependency ordering. This ordering can be restored by placing a barrier() at the beginning of each leg of the "if" statement. This commit adds this requirement to the control-dependencies section. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt index f2668c19807e..adfaca831a90 100644 --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt @@ -608,26 +608,30 @@ as follows: b = p; /* BUG: Compiler can reorder!!! */ do_something(); -The solution is again ACCESS_ONCE(), which preserves the ordering between -the load from variable 'a' and the store to variable 'b': +The solution is again ACCESS_ONCE() and barrier(), which preserves the +ordering between the load from variable 'a' and the store to variable 'b': q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); if (q) { + barrier(); ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; do_something(); } else { + barrier(); ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; do_something_else(); } -You could also use barrier() to prevent the compiler from moving -the stores to variable 'b', but barrier() would not prevent the -compiler from proving to itself that a==1 always, so ACCESS_ONCE() -is also needed. +The initial ACCESS_ONCE() is required to prevent the compiler from +proving the value of 'a', and the pair of barrier() invocations are +required to prevent the compiler from pulling the two identical stores +to 'b' out from the legs of the "if" statement. It is important to note that control dependencies absolutely require a a conditional. For example, the following "optimized" version of -the above example breaks ordering: +the above example breaks ordering, which is why the barrier() invocations +are absolutely required if you have identical stores in both legs of +the "if" statement: q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; /* BUG: No ordering vs. load from a!!! */ @@ -643,9 +647,11 @@ It is of course legal for the prior load to be part of the conditional, for example, as follows: if (ACCESS_ONCE(a) > 0) { + barrier(); ACCESS_ONCE(b) = q / 2; do_something(); } else { + barrier(); ACCESS_ONCE(b) = q / 3; do_something_else(); } @@ -659,9 +665,11 @@ the needed conditional. For example: q = ACCESS_ONCE(a); if (q % MAX) { + barrier(); ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; do_something(); } else { + barrier(); ACCESS_ONCE(b) = p; do_something_else(); } @@ -723,6 +731,10 @@ In summary: use smb_rmb(), smp_wmb(), or, in the case of prior stores and later loads, smp_mb(). + (*) If both legs of the "if" statement begin with identical stores + to the same variable, a barrier() statement is required at the + beginning of each leg of the "if" statement. + (*) Control dependencies require at least one run-time conditional between the prior load and the subsequent store, and this conditional must involve the prior load. If the compiler -- 1.8.1.5