From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, LKP <lkp@01.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk> Subject: Re: inet: frags: Turn fqdir->dead into an int for old Alphas Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 11:50:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20190608185019.GM28207@linux.ibm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiRduKzoLpAwU7iFiOJ6DX7RE+PZ_wFi9Cvq=hDoaNsPA@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 10:50:51AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 10:42 AM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > There are no atomic rmw sequences that have reasonable performance for > > the bitfield updates themselves. > > Note that this is purely about the writing side. Reads of bitfield > values can be (and generally _should_ be) atomic, and hopefully C11 > means that you wouldn't see intermediate values. > > But I'm not convinced about that either: one natural way to update a > bitfield is to first do the masking, and then do the insertion of new > bits, so a bitfield assignment very easily exposes non-real values to > a concurrent read on another CPU. Agreed on the "not convinced" part (though perhaps most implementations would handle concurrent reads and writes involving different fields of the same bitfield). And the C standard does not guarantee this, because data races are defined in terms of memory locations. So as far as the C standard is concerned, if there are two concurrent accesses to fields within a bitfield that are not separated by ":0", there is a data race and so the compiler can do whatever it wants. But do we really care about this case? > What I think C11 is supposed to protect is from compilers doing > horribly bad things, and accessing bitfields with bigger types than > the field itself, ie when you have > > struct { > char c; > int field1:5; > }; > > then a write to "field1" had better not touch "char c" as part of the > rmw operation, because that would indeed introduce a data-race with a > completely independent field that might have completely independent > locking rules. > > But > > struct { > int c:8; > int field1:5; > }; > > would not sanely have the same guarantees, even if the layout in > memory might be identical. Once you have bitfields next to each other, > and use a base type that means they can be combined together, they > can't be sanely modified without locking. > > (And I don't know if C11 took up the "base type of the bitfield" > thing. Maybe you still need to use the ":0" thing to force alignment, > and maybe the C standards people still haven't made the underlying > type be meaningful other than for sign handling). The C standard draft (n2310) gives similar examples: EXAMPLE A structure declared as struct { char a; int b:5, c:11,:0, d:8; struct { int ee:8; } e; } contains four separate memory locations: The member a, and bit-fields d and e.ee are each separate memory locations, and can be modified concurrently without interfering with each other. The bit-fields b and c together constitute the fourth memory location. The bit-fields b and c cannot be concurrently modified, but b and a, for example, can be. So yes, ":0" still forces alignment to the next storage unit. And it can be used to allow concurrent accesses to fields within a bitfield, but only when those two fields are separated by ":0". On the underlying type, according to J.3.9 of the current C working draft, the following are implementation-specified behavior: - Whether a "plain" int bit-field is treated as a signed int bit-field or as an unsigned int bit-field (6.7.2, 6.7.2.1). - Whether atomic types are permitted for bit-fields (6.7.2.1). This last is strange because you are not allowed to take the address of a bit field, and the various operations on atomic types take addresses. Search me! Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-09-10 0:57 [rcu] kernel BUG at include/linux/pagemap.h:149! Fengguang Wu 2015-09-10 10:25 ` Boqun Feng 2015-09-10 17:16 ` Paul E. McKenney 2015-09-11 2:19 ` Boqun Feng [not found] ` <CAJzB8QG=1iZW3dQEie6ZSTLv8GZ3YSut0aL1VU7LLmiHQ1B1DQ@mail.gmail.com> 2015-09-11 21:59 ` Paul E. McKenney 2015-09-12 5:46 ` Boqun Feng 2015-09-21 19:30 ` Frederic Weisbecker 2015-09-21 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-02 5:56 ` rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier Herbert Xu 2019-06-02 20:54 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-03 2:46 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-03 3:47 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-03 4:01 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-03 4:17 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-03 7:23 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-03 8:42 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-03 15:26 ` David Laight 2019-06-03 15:40 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-03 5:26 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-03 6:42 ` Boqun Feng 2019-06-03 20:03 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-04 14:44 ` Alan Stern 2019-06-04 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-04 17:00 ` Alan Stern 2019-06-04 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-07 14:09 ` inet: frags: Turn fqdir->dead into an int for old Alphas Herbert Xu 2019-06-07 15:26 ` Eric Dumazet 2019-06-07 15:32 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-07 16:13 ` Eric Dumazet 2019-06-07 16:19 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-08 15:27 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-08 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-08 17:50 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-08 18:50 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message] 2019-06-08 18:14 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-06 4:51 ` rcu_read_lock lost its compiler barrier Herbert Xu 2019-06-06 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-06 6:14 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-06 9:06 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-06 9:28 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-06 10:58 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-06 13:38 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-06 13:48 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-06 8:16 ` Andrea Parri 2019-06-06 14:19 ` Alan Stern 2019-06-08 15:19 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-08 15:56 ` Alan Stern 2019-06-08 16:31 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-03 9:35 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-06 8:38 ` Andrea Parri 2019-06-06 9:32 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-03 0:06 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-03 3:03 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-03 9:27 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-03 15:55 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-03 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-03 19:53 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-03 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds 2019-06-04 21:14 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-05 2:21 ` Herbert Xu 2019-06-05 3:30 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-06-06 4:37 ` Herbert Xu
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=20190608185019.GM28207@linux.ibm.com \ --to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \ --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \ --cc=davem@davemloft.net \ --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \ --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \ --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \ --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \ --cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lkp@01.org \ --cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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
LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9 lkml/git/9.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \ linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org public-inbox-index lkml Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git