From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
paulmck@kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
parri.andrea@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com,
dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr,
akiyks@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:44:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210604104359.GE2318@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YLn8dzbNwvqrqqp5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:12:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> With optimizing compilers becoming more and more agressive and C so far
> refusing to acknowledge the concept of control-dependencies even while
> we keep growing the amount of reliance on them, things will eventually
> come apart.
>
> There have been talks with toolchain people on how to resolve this; one
> suggestion was allowing the volatile qualifier on branch statements like
> 'if', but so far no actual compiler has made any progress on this.
>
> Rather than waiting any longer, provide our own construct based on that
> suggestion. The idea is by Alan Stern and refined by Paul and myself.
>
> Code generation is sub-optimal (for the weak architectures) since we're
> forced to convert the condition into another and use a fixed conditional
> branch instruction, but shouldn't be too bad.
>
> Usage of volatile_if requires the @cond to be headed by a volatile load
> (READ_ONCE() / atomic_read() etc..) such that the compiler is forced to
> emit the load and the branch emitted will have the required
> data-dependency. Furthermore, volatile_if() is a compiler barrier, which
> should prohibit the compiler from lifting anything out of the selection
> statement.
When building with LTO on arm64, we already upgrade READ_ONCE() to an RCpc
acquire. In this case, it would be really good to avoid having the dummy
conditional branch somehow, but I can't see a good way to achieve that.
> This construct should place control dependencies on a stronger footing
> until such time that the compiler folks get around to accepting them :-)
>
> I've converted most architectures we care about, and the rest will get
> an extra smp_mb() by means of the 'generic' fallback implementation (for
> now).
>
> I've converted the control dependencies I remembered and those found
> with a search for smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(), there might be more.
>
> Compile tested only (alpha, arm, arm64, x86_64, powerpc, powerpc64, s390
> and sparc64).
>
> Suggested-by: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h | 11 +++++++++++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h | 11 +++++++++++
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> arch/s390/include/asm/barrier.h | 3 +++
> arch/sparc/include/asm/barrier_64.h | 3 +++
> arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> include/asm-generic/barrier.h | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/linux/refcount.h | 2 +-
> ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
> ipc/msg.c | 2 +-
> kernel/events/ring_buffer.c | 8 ++++----
> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 4 ++--
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
> 14 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
> index 83ae97c049d9..de8a61479268 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -97,6 +97,17 @@ static inline unsigned long array_index_mask_nospec(unsigned long idx,
> #define array_index_mask_nospec array_index_mask_nospec
> #endif
>
> +/* Guarantee a conditional branch that depends on @cond. */
> +static __always_inline _Bool volatile_cond(_Bool cond)
> +{
> + asm_volatile_goto("teq %0, #0; bne %l[l_yes]"
> + : : "r" (cond) : "cc", "memory" : l_yes);
> + return 0;
> +l_yes:
> + return 1;
> +}
> +#define volatile_cond volatile_cond
> +
> #include <asm-generic/barrier.h>
>
> #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> index 451e11e5fd23..2782a7013615 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -156,6 +156,17 @@ do { \
> (typeof(*p))__u.__val; \
> })
>
> +/* Guarantee a conditional branch that depends on @cond. */
> +static __always_inline _Bool volatile_cond(_Bool cond)
Is _Bool to fix some awful header mess?
> +{
> + asm_volatile_goto("cbnz %0, %l[l_yes]"
> + : : "r" (cond) : "cc", "memory" : l_yes);
> + return 0;
> +l_yes:
> + return 1;
> +}
nit: you don't need the "cc" clobber here.
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/barrier.h b/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> index 640f09479bdf..a84833f1397b 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/barrier.h
> @@ -187,6 +187,42 @@ do { \
> #define virt_store_release(p, v) __smp_store_release(p, v)
> #define virt_load_acquire(p) __smp_load_acquire(p)
>
> +/*
> + * 'Generic' wrapper to make volatile_if() below 'work'. Architectures are
> + * encouraged to provide their own implementation. See x86 for TSO and arm64
> + * for a weak example.
> + */
> +#ifndef volatile_cond
> +#define volatile_cond(cond) ({ bool __t = (cond); smp_mb(); __t; })
> +#endif
> +
> +/**
> + * volatile_if() - Provide a control-dependency
> + *
> + * volatile_if(READ_ONCE(A))
> + * WRITE_ONCE(B, 1);
> + *
> + * will ensure that the STORE to B happens after the LOAD of A. Normally a
> + * control dependency relies on a conditional branch having a data dependency
> + * on the LOAD and an architecture's inability to speculate STOREs. IOW, this
> + * provides a LOAD->STORE order.
> + *
> + * Due to optimizing compilers extra care is needed; as per the example above
> + * the LOAD must be 'volatile' qualified in order to ensure the compiler
> + * actually emits the load, such that the data-dependency to the conditional
> + * branch can be formed.
> + *
> + * Secondly, the compiler must be prohibited from lifting anything out of the
> + * selection statement, as this would obviously also break the ordering.
> + *
> + * Thirdly, and this is the tricky bit, architectures that allow the
> + * LOAD->STORE reorder must ensure the compiler actually emits the conditional
> + * branch instruction, this isn't possible in generic.
> + *
> + * See the volatile_cond() wrapper.
> + */
> +#define volatile_if(cond) if (volatile_cond(cond))
The thing I really dislike about this is that, if the compiler _does_
emit a conditional branch for the C 'if', then we get a pair of branch
instructions in close proximity to each other which the predictor is likely
to hate. I wouldn't be surprised if an RCpc acquire heading the dependency
actually performs better on modern arm64 cores in the general case.
So I think that's an argument for doing this in the compiler...
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-04 10:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 127+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-04 10:12 [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if() Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 10:44 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2021-06-04 11:13 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-04 11:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 13:44 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-04 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 15:13 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-04 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 15:36 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-04 15:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 15:51 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-04 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 18:27 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-04 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-04 19:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-04 20:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-04 21:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-04 21:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-04 22:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-05 14:57 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-06 0:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-06 1:29 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-06 3:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 4:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-06 13:17 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 19:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-06 12:59 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 13:47 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-06 17:13 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 18:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 19:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 18:41 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-06 18:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-06-06 19:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-06 19:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 20:11 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 21:19 ` Alexander Monakov
2021-06-06 22:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 23:39 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-06-06 23:44 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-06-07 8:01 ` Alexander Monakov
2021-06-07 8:27 ` Marco Elver
2021-06-07 15:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-07 17:04 ` Marco Elver
2021-06-08 9:30 ` Marco Elver
2021-06-08 11:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-08 15:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-09 12:44 ` Marco Elver
2021-06-09 15:31 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-09 16:13 ` Marco Elver
2021-06-09 17:14 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-09 17:31 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-06-09 20:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-09 18:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-07 17:52 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-07 18:07 ` Alexander Monakov
2021-06-07 18:18 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-07 17:42 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-07 20:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-07 22:54 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 11:53 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 13:45 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-06 18:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 18:22 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-06 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-07 10:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-07 11:52 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-07 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-07 16:02 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-07 18:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
[not found] ` <20210730172020.GA32396@knuckles.cs.ucl.ac.uk>
2021-07-30 20:35 ` Alan Stern
2021-08-02 21:18 ` Alan Stern
2021-08-02 23:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-08-04 20:09 ` Alan Stern
2021-08-05 19:47 ` Alan Stern
2021-08-07 0:51 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-06 18:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 18:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 19:52 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 20:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-06 20:26 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 23:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-07 14:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-07 15:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-07 18:23 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-07 19:51 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-07 20:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-07 22:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-07 23:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-07 10:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-07 14:16 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 22:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-05 3:14 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-05 16:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-04 15:50 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 15:47 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 11:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 14:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-04 15:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 16:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 16:40 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 18:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-04 19:53 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 20:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-06 11:36 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-06 19:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-04 14:25 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-04 16:09 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 16:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 16:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-04 16:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 16:52 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-04 17:24 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 17:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-06-04 18:25 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-06-04 19:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-06-04 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-06-04 18:23 ` Alan Stern
2021-06-08 12:48 ` David Laight
2021-09-24 18:38 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-09-24 19:52 ` Alan Stern
2021-09-24 20:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-09-24 19:55 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-09-24 20:39 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-09-24 22:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=20210604104359.GE2318@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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).