Am 9/28/2024 um 11:15 PM schrieb Alan Stern:
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 11:55:22AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-09-28 17:49, Alan Stern wrote:
Isn't it true that on strongly ordered CPUs, a compiler barrier is
sufficient to prevent the rcu_dereference() problem? So the whole idea
behind ptr_eq() is that it prevents the problem on all CPUs.
Correct. But given that we have ptr_eq(), it's good to show how it
equally prevents the compiler from reordering address-dependent loads
(comparison with constant) *and* prevents the compiler from using
one pointer rather than the other (comparison between two non-constant
pointers) which affects speculation on weakly-ordered CPUs.
I don't see how these two things differ from each other. In the
comparison-with-a-constant case, how is the compiler reordering
anything? Isn't it just using the constant address rather than the
loaded pointer and thereby breaking the address dependency?
I also currently don't see any major difference between the constant and
register case. The point is that the address is known before loading
into b, and hence the compiler + hardware can speculatively load *b
before loading into b.
The only difference is how far before loading into b the address is known.
Best wishes,
jonas
