From: Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "stern@rowland.harvard.edu" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"akiyks@gmail.com" <akiyks@gmail.com>,
"andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com"
<andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
"boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"dlustig@nvidia.com" <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
"dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
"luc.maranget@inria.fr" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
"npiggin@gmail.com" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
"paulmck@linux.ibm.com" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>, Huang Pei <huangpei@loongson.cn>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mips/atomic: Fix loongson_llsc_mb() wreckage
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:18:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190424211759.52xraajqwudc2fza@pburton-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190424124421.636767843@infradead.org>
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 02:36:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The comment describing the loongson_llsc_mb() reorder case doesn't
> make any sense what so ever. Instruction re-ordering is not an SMP
> artifact, but rather a CPU local phenomenon. This means that _every_
> LL/SC loop needs this barrier right in front to avoid the CPU from
> leaking a memop inside it.
Does it?
The Loongson bug being described here causes an sc to succeed
erroneously if certain loads or stores are executed between the ll &
associated sc, including speculatively. On a UP system there's no code
running on other cores to race with us & cause our sc to fail - ie. sc
should always succeed anyway, so if the bug hits & the sc succeeds
what's the big deal? It would have succeeded anyway. At least that's my
understanding based on discussions with Loongson engineers a while ago.
Having said that, if you have a strong preference for adding the barrier
in UP systems anyway then I don't really object. It's not like anyone's
likely to want to run a UP kernel on the affected systems, nevermind
care about a miniscule performance impact.
One possibility your change could benefit would be if someone ran Linux
on a subset of cores & some non-Linux code on other cores, in which case
there could be something to cause the sc to fail. I've no idea if that's
something these Loongson systems ever do though.
> For the branch speculation case; if futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic()
> needs one at the bne branch target, then surely the normal
> __cmpxch_asmg() implementation does too. We cannot rely on the
s/cmpxch_asmg/cmpxchg_asm/
> barriers from cmpxchg() because cmpxchg_local() is implemented with
> the same macro, and branch prediction and speculation are, too, CPU
> local.
Similar story - cmpxchg_local() ought not have have CPUs racing for
access to the memory in question. Having said that I don't know the
details of when Loongson clears LLBit (ie. causes an sc to fail), so if
it does that on based upon access to memory at a larger granularity than
the 32b or 64b value being operated on then that could be a problem so
I'm pretty happy with adding these barriers.
Thanks,
Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-24 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-24 12:36 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] atomic: Fixes to smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() and mips Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 12:36 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] mips/atomic: Fix cmpxchg64 barriers Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 21:00 ` Paul Burton
2019-04-25 6:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 12:36 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mips/atomic: Fix loongson_llsc_mb() wreckage Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 21:18 ` Paul Burton [this message]
2019-04-25 4:58 ` huangpei
2019-04-25 7:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-25 9:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-25 12:14 ` huangpei
2019-04-25 9:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-14 15:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-14 16:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-14 16:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-14 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-15 13:50 ` huangpei
2019-04-25 11:32 ` huangpei
2019-04-25 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-25 12:51 ` huangpei
2019-04-25 13:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 2:57 ` huangpei
2019-05-14 15:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-25 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-25 7:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 12:36 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] mips/atomic: Optimize loongson3_llsc_mb() Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 12:37 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] mips/atomic: Fix smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 21:24 ` Paul Burton
2019-04-25 7:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 12:37 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] x86/atomic: " Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 13:41 ` Will Deacon
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=20190424211759.52xraajqwudc2fza@pburton-laptop \
--to=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=chenhc@lemote.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dlustig@nvidia.com \
--cc=huangpei@loongson.cn \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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).