On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 08:51:03PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 11:10:36PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 07:57:20PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:33:13PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 07:26:28PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:07:31PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Boqun already mentioned the "mixing access sizes", which is actually > > > > > > > quite fundamental in the kernel, where we play lots of games with that > > > > > > > (typically around locking, where you find patterns line unlock writing > > > > > > > a zero to a single byte, even though the whole lock data structure is > > > > > > > a word). And sometimes the access size games are very explicit (eg > > > > > > > lib/lockref.c). > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think mixing access sizes should be a real barrier. On the read > > > > > > > > > > Well, it actually is, since mixing access sizes is, guess what, > > > > > an undefined behavior: > > > > > > > > > > (example in https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/atomic/#memory-model-for-atomic-accesses) > > > > > > > > > > thread::scope(|s| { > > > > > // This is UB: using different-sized atomic accesses to the same data > > > > > s.spawn(|| atomic.store(1, Ordering::Relaxed)); > > > > > s.spawn(|| unsafe { > > > > > let differently_sized = transmute::<&AtomicU16, &AtomicU8>(&atomic); > > > > > differently_sized.store(2, Ordering::Relaxed); > > > > > }); > > > > > }); > > > > > > > > > > Of course, you can say "I will just ignore the UB", but if you have to > > > > > ignore "compiler rules" to make your code work, why bother use compiler > > > > > builtin in the first place? Being UB means they are NOT guaranteed to > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > That's not what I'm proposing - you'd need additional compiler support. > > > > > > Ah, OK. > > > > > > > but the new intrinsic would be no different, semantics wise for the > > > > compiler to model, than a "lock orb". > > > > > > Be ready to be disappointed: > > > > > > https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/is.20atomic.20aliasing.20allowed.3F/near/402078545 > > > https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/136281-t-opsem/topic/is.20atomic.20aliasing.20allowed.3F/near/402082631 > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > In fact, if you get a chance to read the previous discussion links I > > > shared, you will find I was just like you in the beginning: hope we > > > could extend the model to support more kernel code properly. But my > > > overall feeling is that it's either very challenging or lack of > > > motivation to do. > > > > That's casting - that doesn't work because compiler people hate > > aliasing. > > > > But intrinsics for e.g. > > __atomic32_read_u8(atomic_u32_t *a, unsigned byte) > > __atomic32_write_u8(atomic_u32_t a*, unsigned byte) > > > > so "byte" here is the byte indexing in the u32? Hmm... I guess that'll > work. But I really don't know whether LLVM/Rust will support such an > intrinsic... They're going to need this eventually - really, entire structs that can be marked as atomic. Types aren't limited to the integers.
