Am 5/21/2024 um 5:36 PM schrieb Alan Stern:
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 11:57:29AM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
Am 5/18/2024 um 2:31 AM schrieb Alan Stern:
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:44:05AM +0200, Hernan Ponce de Leon wrote:
On 5/16/2024 10:31 AM, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
Am 5/16/2024 um 3:43 AM schrieb Alan Stern:
Hernan and Jonas:
Can you explain more fully the changes you want to make to herd7 and/or
the LKMM? The goal is to make the memory barriers currently implicit in
RMW operations explicit, but I couldn't understand how you propose to do
this.
Are you going to change herd7 somehow, and if so, how? It seems like
you should want to provide sufficient information so that the .bell
and .cat files can implement the appropriate memory barriers associated
with each RMW operation. What additional information is needed? And
how (explained in English, not by quoting source code) will the .bell
and .cat files make use of this information?
Alan
I don't know whether herd7 needs to be changed. Probably, herd7 does the
following:
- if a tag called Mb appears on an rmw instruction (by instruction I
mean things like xchg(), atomic_inc_return_relaxed()), replace it with
one of those things:
* full mb ; once (the rmw) ; full mb, if a value returning
(successful) rmw
* once (the rmw) otherwise
- everything else gets translated 1:1 into some internal representation
This is my understanding from reading the source code of CSem.ml in herd7's
repo.
Also, this is exactly what dartagnan is currently doing.
What I'm proposing is:
1. remove this transpilation step,
2. and instead allow the Mb tag to actually appear on RMW instructions
3. change the cat file to explicitly define the behavior of the Mb tag
on RMW instructions
These are the exact 3 things I changed in dartagnan for testing what Jonas
proposed.
I am not sure if further changes are needed for herd7.
What about failed RMW instructions? IIRC, herd7 generates just an R for
these, not both R and W, but won't it still be annotated with an mb tag?
And wasn't this matter of failed RMWs one of the issues that the two of
you specifically wanted to make explicit in the memory model, rather
than implicit in the operation of herd7?
That's why we use the RMW_MB tag. I should have copied that definition too:
(* full barrier events that appear in non-failing RMW *)
let RMW_MB = Mb & (dom(rmw) | range(rmw))
This ensures that the only successful rmw instructions have an RMW_MB tag.
And wasn't another one of these issues the difference between
value-returning and non-value-returning RMWs? As far as I can, nothing
in the .def file specifically mentions this. There's the noreturn tag
in the .bell file, but nothing in the .def file says which instructions
it applies to. Or are we supposed to know that it automatically applies
to all __atomic_op() instances?
Ah, now you're already forestalling my next suggestion :))
I would say let's fix one issue at a time (learned this from Andrea).
For the other issue, do noreturn rmws always have the same ordering as once?
I suspect we need to extend herd slightly more to support the second
one, I don't know if there's syntax for passing tags to __atomic_op.
Okay, good. This answers the first part of what I asked. What about
the second part? That is, how will the changes to the .def, .bell, and
.cat files achieve your goals?
Alan
Firstly, we'd allow 'mb as a barrier mode in events, e.g.
You mean as a mode in RMW events. 'mb already is a mode for F events.
Thanks, you're right.
instructions RMW[{'once,'acquire,'release,'mb}]
then the Mb tags would appear in the graph. And then I'd define the ordering
explicitly. One way is to say that an Mb tag orders all memory accesses
before(or at) the tag with all memory accesses after(or at) the tag, except
the accesses of the rmw with each other.
I don't think you need to add very much. The .cat file already defines
the mb relation as including the term:
([M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M])
All that's needed is to replace the fencerel(Mb) with something more
general...
This is the same as the full fence before the read, which orders all memory
accesses before the read with every access after(or at) the read,
plus the full fence after the write, which orders all memory accesses
before(or at) the write with all accesses after the write.
That would be done by adding
[M] ; (po \ rmw) & (po^?; [RMW_MB] ; po^?) ; [M]
.. like this.
to ppo.
You need to update the definition of mb, not ppo.
Yes, I meant to update the definition of mb, but I momentarily thought
the effect of that is just that
ppo_new = ppo_old | [M] ; (po \ rmw) & (po^?; [RMW_MB] ; po^?) ; [M]
I forgot that extending mb has another effect, in pb.
And the RMW_MB above
looks wrong; shouldn't it be just Mb?
As discussed above, no, since the Mb will also be on the failed RMW.
Also, is the "\ rmw" part really necessary? I don't think it makes any
difference; the memory model already knows that the read part of an RMW
has to happen before the write part.
It unfortunately does make a difference, because mb is a strong fence.
This means that an Mb in an rmw sequence would create additional pb edges.
prop;(rfe ; [Mb];rmw;[Mb])
I believe this is might give wrong results on powerpc, but I'd need to
double check.
One could also split it into two rules to keep with the "two full fences"
analogy. Maybe a good way would be like this:
[M] ; po; [RMW_MB & R] ; po^? ; [M]
[M] ; po^?; [RMW_MB & W] ; po ; [M]
My preference is for the first approach.
That was also my early preference, but to be honest I expected that
you'd prefer the second approach.
Actually, I also started warming up to it.
Have fun,
jonas
