From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Daniel Kroening <kroening@cs.ox.ac.uk>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:35:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190415133535.GU14111@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190413213938.GA4371@andrea>
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:39:38PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 08:01:32AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:36:18AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > > The formula was more along the line of "do not assume either of these
> > > > > cases to hold; use barrier() is you need an unconditional barrier..."
> > > > > AFAICT, all current implementations of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
> > > > > provides a compiler barrier with either barrier() or "memory" clobber.
> > > >
> > > > Well, we have two reasonable choices: Say that
> > > > smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic will always provide a compiler barrier,
> > > > or don't say this. I see no point in saying that the combination of
> > > > Before-atomic followed by RMW provides a barrier.
> > >
> > > ;-/ I'm fine with the first choice. I don't see how the second choice
> > > (this proposal/patch) would be consistent with some documentation and
> > > with the current implementations; for example,
> > >
> > > 1) Documentation/atomic_t.txt says:
> > >
> > > Thus:
> > >
> > > atomic_fetch_add();
> > >
> > > is equivalent to:
> > >
> > > smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > > atomic_fetch_add_relaxed();
> > > smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > 2) Some implementations of the _relaxed() variants do not provide any
> > > compiler barrier currently.
> >
> > But don't all implementations of smp_mb__before_atomic() and
> > smp_mb__after_atomic() currently supply a compiler barrier?
>
> Yes, AFAICS, all implementations of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() currently
> supply a compiler barrier.
>
> Nevertheless, there's a difference between: (1) Specify that these barriers
> supply a compiler barrier, (2) Specify that (certain) combinations of these
> barriers and RMWs supply a compiler barrier, and (3) This patch... ;-)
>
> FWIW, I'm not aware of current/informal documentation following (the arguably
> simpler but slightly stronger) (1). But again (amending my last remark): (1)
> and (2) both make sense to me.
Another question is "should the kernel permit smp_mb__{before,after}*()
anywhere other than immediately before or after the primitive being
strengthened?"
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-15 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-19 19:38 Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM Alan Stern
2019-04-02 14:42 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-02 18:06 ` Alan Stern
2019-04-06 0:49 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-06 16:03 ` Alan Stern
2019-04-08 5:51 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-08 14:18 ` Alan Stern
2019-04-09 1:36 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-09 15:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-13 21:39 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-15 13:35 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-04-15 13:50 ` Alan Stern
2019-04-15 13:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-18 12:54 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-18 17:44 ` Alan Stern
2019-04-18 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-18 20:19 ` Alan Stern
2019-04-19 0:53 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-19 12:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-19 14:34 ` Alan Stern
2019-04-19 17:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-19 15:06 ` Akira Yokosawa
2019-04-19 16:37 ` Andrea Parri
2019-04-19 18:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-04-20 14:50 ` Akira Yokosawa
2019-04-21 19:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20190415133535.GU14111@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=kroening@cs.ox.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.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 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).