From: "huangpei@loongson.cn" <huangpei@loongson.cn>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Paul Burton" <paul.burton@mips.com>,
"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>,
陈华才 <chenhc@lemote.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mips/atomic: Fix loongson_llsc_mb() wreckage
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:50:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201905152150256295825@loongson.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: CAHk-=wgxT24Z6Ba_4DKbMfBnQ0Cp4gzwp6Vq1aBkU5bsjqKUhg@mail.gmail.com
>On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:58 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> So if two variables share a line, and one is local while the other is
>> shared atomic, can contention on the line, but not the variable, cause
>> issues for the local variable?
>>
>> If not; why not? Because so far the issue is line granular due to the
>> coherence aspect.
>
>If I understood the issue correctly, it's not that cache coherence
>doesn't work, it's literally that the sc succeeds when it shouldn't.
>
>In other words, it's not going to affect anything else, but it means
>that "ll/sc" isn't actually truly atomic, because the cacheline could
>have bounced around to another CPU in the meantime.
>
>So we *think* we got an atomic update, but didn't, and the "ll/sc"
>pair ends up incorrectly working as a regular "load -> store" pair,
>because the "sc' incorrectly thought it still had exclusive access to
>the line from the "ll".
>
>The added memory barrier isn't because it's a memory barrier, it's
>just keeping the subsequent speculative instructions from getting the
>cacheline back and causing that "sc" confusion.
>
>But note how from a cache coherency standpoint, it's not about the
>cache coherency being wrong, it's literally just about the ll/sc not
>giving the atomicity guarantees that the sequence is *supposed* to
>give. So an "atomic_inc()" can basically (under just the wrong
>circumstances) essentially turn into just a non-atomic "*p++".
>
Agreed,that is exactly what I was learned.
>NOTE! I have no actual inside knowledge of what is going on. The above
>is purely my reading of this thread, and maybe I have mis-understood.
>
you got it right.
> Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-15 13:51 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
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 [this message]
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=201905152150256295825@loongson.cn \
--to=huangpei@loongson.cn \
--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=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paul.burton@mips.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).