From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78250C43387 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444372147C for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728575AbfAGTC0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:02:26 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:51774 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728312AbfAGTCX (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:02:23 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id x07IhuUL089162 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:02:22 -0500 Received: from e14.ny.us.ibm.com (e14.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.204]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2pvb4cd1n5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 14:02:22 -0500 Received: from localhost by e14.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:20 -0000 Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.24) by e14.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.201) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:14 -0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x07J2Dgu22610062 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:13 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F589B206A; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABC6B206C; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.88]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:02:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1219816C14EE; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:02:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:02:36 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Jason Wang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Nicholas Piggin , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Akira Yokosawa , Daniel Lustig , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jonathan Corbet , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Arnd Bergmann , Luc Van Oostenryck , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] barriers: convert a control to a data dependency Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190102205715.14054-1-mst@redhat.com> <20190102205715.14054-4-mst@redhat.com> <86023cbe-d1ae-a0d6-7b75-26556f1a0c1f@redhat.com> <20190106231756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190107094610.GA2861@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190107082223-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20190107082223-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19010719-0052-0000-0000-0000037443A4 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010362; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000273; SDB=6.01143148; UDB=6.00595104; IPR=6.00923399; MB=3.00025019; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-01-07 19:02:20 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19010719-0053-0000-0000-00005F608915 Message-Id: <20190107190236.GF1215@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-01-07_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=836 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901070159 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 11:23:07PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:58:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/1/3 上午4:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > +#if defined(COMPILER_HAS_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR) && \ > > > > > + !defined(ARCH_NEEDS_READ_BARRIER_DEPENDS) > > > > > + > > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ \ > > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_val = (long)(val); \ > > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_ptr = (long)(ptr) - dependent_ptr_mb_val; \ > > > > > + \ > > > > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(val) > sizeof(long)); \ > > > > > + OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(dependent_ptr_mb_val); \ > > > > > + (typeof(ptr))(dependent_ptr_mb_ptr + dependent_ptr_mb_val); \ > > > > > +}) > > > > > + > > > > > +#else > > > > > + > > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ mb(); (ptr); }) > > > > > > > > > > > > So for the example of patch 4, we'd better fall back to rmb() or need a > > > > dependent_ptr_rmb()? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > You mean for strongly ordered architectures like Intel? > > > Yes, maybe it makes sense to have dependent_ptr_smp_rmb, > > > dependent_ptr_dma_rmb and dependent_ptr_virt_rmb. > > > > > > mb variant is unused right now so I'll remove it. > > > > How about naming the thing: dependent_ptr() ? That is without any (r)mb > > implications at all. The address dependency is strictly weaker than an > > rmb in that it will only order the two loads in qestion and not, like > > rmb, any prior to any later load. > > So I'm fine with this as it's enough for virtio, but I would like to point out two things: > > 1. E.g. on x86 both SMP and DMA variants can be NOPs but > the madatory one can't, so assuming we do not want > it to be stronger than rmp then either we want > smp_dependent_ptr(), dma_dependent_ptr(), dependent_ptr() > or we just will specify that dependent_ptr() works for > both DMA and SMP. > > 2. Down the road, someone might want to order a store after a load. > Address dependency does that for us too. Assuming we make > dependent_ptr a NOP on x86, we will want an mb variant > which isn't a NOP on x86. Will we want to rename > dependent_ptr to dependent_ptr_rmb at that point? But x86 preserves store-after-load orderings anyway, and even Alpha respects ordering from loads to dependent stores. So what am I missing here? Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] barriers: convert a control to a data dependency Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:02:36 -0800 Message-ID: <20190107190236.GF1215@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190102205715.14054-1-mst@redhat.com> <20190102205715.14054-4-mst@redhat.com> <86023cbe-d1ae-a0d6-7b75-26556f1a0c1f@redhat.com> <20190106231756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190107094610.GA2861@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190107082223-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Jason Wang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Nicholas Piggin , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Akira Yokosawa , Daniel Lustig , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jonathan Corbet , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Arnd Bergmann , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190107082223-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 11:23:07PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:58:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/1/3 上午4:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > +#if defined(COMPILER_HAS_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR) && \ > > > > > + !defined(ARCH_NEEDS_READ_BARRIER_DEPENDS) > > > > > + > > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ \ > > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_val = (long)(val); \ > > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_ptr = (long)(ptr) - dependent_ptr_mb_val; \ > > > > > + \ > > > > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(val) > sizeof(long)); \ > > > > > + OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(dependent_ptr_mb_val); \ > > > > > + (typeof(ptr))(dependent_ptr_mb_ptr + dependent_ptr_mb_val); \ > > > > > +}) > > > > > + > > > > > +#else > > > > > + > > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ mb(); (ptr); }) > > > > > > > > > > > > So for the example of patch 4, we'd better fall back to rmb() or need a > > > > dependent_ptr_rmb()? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > You mean for strongly ordered architectures like Intel? > > > Yes, maybe it makes sense to have dependent_ptr_smp_rmb, > > > dependent_ptr_dma_rmb and dependent_ptr_virt_rmb. > > > > > > mb variant is unused right now so I'll remove it. > > > > How about naming the thing: dependent_ptr() ? That is without any (r)mb > > implications at all. The address dependency is strictly weaker than an > > rmb in that it will only order the two loads in qestion and not, like > > rmb, any prior to any later load. > > So I'm fine with this as it's enough for virtio, but I would like to point out two things: > > 1. E.g. on x86 both SMP and DMA variants can be NOPs but > the madatory one can't, so assuming we do not want > it to be stronger than rmp then either we want > smp_dependent_ptr(), dma_dependent_ptr(), dependent_ptr() > or we just will specify that dependent_ptr() works for > both DMA and SMP. > > 2. Down the road, someone might want to order a store after a load. > Address dependency does that for us too. Assuming we make > dependent_ptr a NOP on x86, we will want an mb variant > which isn't a NOP on x86. Will we want to rename > dependent_ptr to dependent_ptr_rmb at that point? But x86 preserves store-after-load orderings anyway, and even Alpha respects ordering from loads to dependent stores. So what am I missing here? Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] barriers: convert a control to a data dependency Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:02:36 -0800 Message-ID: <20190107190236.GF1215@linux.ibm.com> References: <20190102205715.14054-1-mst@redhat.com> <20190102205715.14054-4-mst@redhat.com> <86023cbe-d1ae-a0d6-7b75-26556f1a0c1f@redhat.com> <20190106231756-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190107094610.GA2861@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190107082223-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190107082223-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Jason Wang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , Nicholas Piggin , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Akira Yokosawa , Daniel Lustig , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jonathan Corbet , Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , Arnd Bergmann List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 11:23:07PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:58:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/1/3 上午4:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > +#if defined(COMPILER_HAS_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR) && \ > > > > > + !defined(ARCH_NEEDS_READ_BARRIER_DEPENDS) > > > > > + > > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ \ > > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_val = (long)(val); \ > > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_ptr = (long)(ptr) - dependent_ptr_mb_val; \ > > > > > + \ > > > > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(val) > sizeof(long)); \ > > > > > + OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(dependent_ptr_mb_val); \ > > > > > + (typeof(ptr))(dependent_ptr_mb_ptr + dependent_ptr_mb_val); \ > > > > > +}) > > > > > + > > > > > +#else > > > > > + > > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ mb(); (ptr); }) > > > > > > > > > > > > So for the example of patch 4, we'd better fall back to rmb() or need a > > > > dependent_ptr_rmb()? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > You mean for strongly ordered architectures like Intel? > > > Yes, maybe it makes sense to have dependent_ptr_smp_rmb, > > > dependent_ptr_dma_rmb and dependent_ptr_virt_rmb. > > > > > > mb variant is unused right now so I'll remove it. > > > > How about naming the thing: dependent_ptr() ? That is without any (r)mb > > implications at all. The address dependency is strictly weaker than an > > rmb in that it will only order the two loads in qestion and not, like > > rmb, any prior to any later load. > > So I'm fine with this as it's enough for virtio, but I would like to point out two things: > > 1. E.g. on x86 both SMP and DMA variants can be NOPs but > the madatory one can't, so assuming we do not want > it to be stronger than rmp then either we want > smp_dependent_ptr(), dma_dependent_ptr(), dependent_ptr() > or we just will specify that dependent_ptr() works for > both DMA and SMP. > > 2. Down the road, someone might want to order a store after a load. > Address dependency does that for us too. Assuming we make > dependent_ptr a NOP on x86, we will want an mb variant > which isn't a NOP on x86. Will we want to rename > dependent_ptr to dependent_ptr_rmb at that point? But x86 preserves store-after-load orderings anyway, and even Alpha respects ordering from loads to dependent stores. So what am I missing here? Thanx, Paul