From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754969Ab3JaPJk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:09:40 -0400
Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:37697 "EHLO
	e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754302Ab3JaPJj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:09:39 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:07:56 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@il.ibm.com>, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
        Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc
Message-ID: <20131031150756.GB4067@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <CAFTL4hxn47KFKZPLgKeBxxdaAbA4vg9QVzctuW4ZrSgmfX5bAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <OFB9096CCA.68AAFFFB-ON42257C12.0044F107-42257C12.00457129@il.ibm.com>
 <20131028132634.GO19466@laptop.lan>
 <20131028163418.GD4126@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131028201735.GA15629@redhat.com>
 <OF58D85F5A.03E37A80-ON42257C12.0070E552-42257C12.00734308@il.ibm.com>
 <20131030092725.GL4126@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <OFC6B7100E.31C6B190-ON42257C14.004841C6-42257C14.004A0EA6@il.ibm.com>
 <20131031043258.GQ4126@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131031090457.GU19466@laptop.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131031090457.GU19466@laptop.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-MML: No
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 13103115-9332-0000-0000-000001FE6424
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:04:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Before C/C++11, the closest thing to such a prohibition is use of
> > volatile, for example, ACCESS_ONCE().  Even in C/C++11, you have to
> > use atomics to get anything resembing this prohibition.
> > 
> > If you just use normal variables, the compiler is within its rights
> > to transform something like the following:
> > 
> > 	if (a)
> > 		b = 1;
> > 	else
> > 		b = 42;
> > 
> > Into:
> > 
> > 	b = 42;
> > 	if (a)
> > 		b = 1;
> > 
> > Many other similar transformations are permitted.  Some are used to all
> > vector instructions to be used -- the compiler can do a write with an
> > overly wide vector instruction, then clean up the clobbered variables
> > later, if it wishes.  Again, if the variables are not marked volatile,
> > or, in C/C++11, atomic.
> 
> While I've heard you tell this story before, my mind keeps boggling how
> we've been able to use shared memory at all, all these years.
> 
> It seems to me stuff should have broken left, right and center if
> compilers were really aggressive about this.

Sometimes having stupid compilers is a good thing.  But they really are
getting more aggressive.

							Thanx, Paul