All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
	Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
	Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory-model: fix cheat sheet typo
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:15:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <156ac07b-7393-449f-518a-6b1c2cff8efb@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180410213434.GC3948@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 10/04/2018 23:34, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Glad it helps, and I have queued it for the next merge window.  Of course,
> if a further improvement comes to mind, please do not keep it a secret.  ;-)

Yes, there are several changes that could be included:

- SV could be added to the prior operation case as well?  It should be
symmetric

- The *_relaxed() case also applies to void RMW

- smp_store_mb() is missing

- smp_rmb() orders prior reads fully against subsequent RMW because SV
applies between the two parts of the RMW; likewise smp_wmb() orders prior
RMW fully against subsequent writes


I am going submit these changes separately, but before doing that I can show
also my rewrite of the cheat sheet.

The advantage is that, at least to me, it's clearer (and gets rid of
"Self" :)).

The disadvantage is that it's much longer---almost twice the lines, even if
you discount the splitting out of cumulative/propagating to a separate table
(which in turn is because to me it's a different level of black magic).

---------------------
Memory operations are listed in this document as follows:

	R:	Read portion of RMW
	W:	Write portion of RMW
	DR:	Dependent read (address dependency)
	DW:	Dependent write (address, data, or control dependency)
	RMW:	Atomic read-modify-write operation
	SV	Other accesses to the same variable


Memory access operations order other memory operations against themselves as
follows:

                                   Prior Operation   Subsequent Operation
                                   ---------------   ---------------------
                                   R  W  RMW  SV     R  W  DR  DW  RMW  SV
                                   -  -  ---  --     -  -  --  --  ---  --
Store, e.g., WRITE_ONCE()                      Y                         Y
Load, e.g., READ_ONCE()                        Y            Y   Y        Y
Unsuccessful RMW operation                     Y            Y   Y        Y
*_relaxed() or void RMW operation              Y            Y   Y        Y
rcu_dereference()                              Y            Y   Y        Y
Successful *_acquire()                         Y      r  r  r   r    r   Y
Successful *_release()             w  w    w   Y                         Y
smp_store_mb()                     Y  Y    Y   Y      Y  Y   Y   Y   Y   Y
Successful full non-void RMW       Y  Y    Y   Y      Y  Y   Y   Y   Y   Y

Key:	Y:	Memory operation provides ordering
	r:	Cannot move past the read portion of the *_acquire()
	w:	Cannot move past the write portion of the *_release()


Memory barriers order prior memory operations against subsequent memory
operations.  Two operations are ordered if both have non-empty cells in
the following table:

                                   Prior Operation   Subsequent Operation
                                   ---------------   --------------------
                                   R  W  RMW         R  W  DR  DW  RMW
                                   -  -  ---         -  -  --  --  ---
smp_rmb()                          Y      r          Y      Y       Y
smp_wmb()                             Y   Y             Y       Y   w
smp_mb() & synchronize_rcu()       Y  Y   Y          Y  Y   Y   Y   Y
smp_mb__before_atomic()            Y  Y   Y          a  a   a   a   Y
smp_mb__after_atomic()             a  a   Y          Y  Y   Y   Y


Key:	Y:	Barrier provides ordering
	r:	Barrier provides ordering against the read portion of RMW
	w:	Barrier provides ordering against the write portion of RMW
	a:	Barrier provides ordering given intervening RMW atomic operation


Finally the following describes which operations provide cumulative and
propagating fences:

                                     Cumulative         Propagates
                                     ----------         ----------
Store, e.g., WRITE_ONCE()
Load, e.g., READ_ONCE()
Unsuccessful RMW operation
*_relaxed() or void RMW operation
rcu_dereference()
Successful *_acquire()
Successful *_release()                   Y
smp_store_mb()                           Y                  Y
Successful full non-void RMW             Y                  Y
smp_rmb()
smp_wmb()
smp_mb() & synchronize_rcu()             Y                  Y
smp_mb__before_atomic()                  Y                  Y
smp_mb__after_atomic()                   Y                  Y
----------

Perhaps you can see some obvious improvements.  Otherwise I'll send patches
for the above issues.

Thanks,

Paolo

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-11 11:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-09 16:50 [PATCH] memory-model: fix cheat sheet typo Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-09 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-10 20:32   ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-10 21:10     ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-10 21:34       ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-11 11:15         ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2018-04-11 16:19           ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-11 16:31             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-11 17:06               ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-12 12:52                 ` Boqun Feng
2018-04-12  9:23           ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-12 10:18             ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-12 11:21               ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-12 21:18                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-04-13  9:54                   ` Andrea Parri

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=156ac07b-7393-449f-518a-6b1c2cff8efb@redhat.com \
    --to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=parri.andrea@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.