On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 13:44 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:36:07PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:06 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:43:46AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 09:14 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:46:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 03:31:23PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:37:43PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > @@ -68,7 +72,12 @@ void mcs_spin_unlock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) > > > > > > > > while (!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))) > > > > > > > > arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > - ACCESS_ONCE(next->locked) = 1; > > > > > > > > - smp_wmb(); > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > > + * Pass lock to next waiter. > > > > > > > > + * smp_store_release() provides a memory barrier to ensure > > > > > > > > + * all operations in the critical section has been completed > > > > > > > > + * before unlocking. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > + smp_store_release(&next->locked, 1); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, there is one problem with this that I missed yesterday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt requires that an unlock-lock pair > > > > > > > provide a full barrier, but this is not guaranteed if we use > > > > > > > smp_store_release() for unlock and smp_load_acquire() for lock. > > > > > > > At least one of these needs a full memory barrier. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, so in the following case: > > > > > > > > > > > > Access A > > > > > > unlock() /* release semantics */ > > > > > > lock() /* acquire semantics */ > > > > > > Access B > > > > > > > > > > > > A cannot pass beyond the unlock() and B cannot pass the before the lock(). > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that accesses between the unlock and the lock can be move across both > > > > > > A and B, but that doesn't seem to matter by my reading of the above. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the problematic scenario you have in mind? Are you thinking of the > > > > > > lock() moving before the unlock()? That's only permitted by RCpc afaiu, > > > > > > which I don't think any architectures supported by Linux implement... > > > > > > (ARMv8 acquire/release is RCsc). > > > > > > > > > > If smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() are both implemented using > > > > > lwsync on powerpc, and if Access A is a store and Access B is a load, > > > > > then Access A and Access B can be reordered. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if every other architecture will be providing RCsc implementations > > > > > for smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release(), which would not be a bad > > > > > thing, then another approach is for powerpc to use sync rather than lwsync > > > > > for one or the other of smp_load_acquire() or smp_store_release(). > > > > > > > > Can we count on the xchg function in the beginning of mcs_lock to > > > > provide a memory barrier? It should provide an implicit memory > > > > barrier according to the memory-barriers document. > > > > > > The problem with the implicit full barrier associated with the xchg() > > > function is that it is in the wrong place if the lock is contended. > > > We need to ensure that the previous lock holder's critical section > > > is seen by everyone to precede that of the next lock holder, and > > > we need transitivity. The only operations that are in the right place > > > to force the needed ordering in the contended case are those involved > > > in the lock handoff. :-( > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > I'm still scratching my head on how ACCESS A > > and ACCESS B could get reordered. > > > > The smp_store_release instruction in unlock should guarantee that > > all memory operations in the previous lock holder's critical section has > > been completed and seen by everyone, before the store operation > > to set the lock for the next holder is seen. And the > > smp_load_acquire should guarantee that all memory operations > > for next lock holder happen after checking that it has got lock. > > So it seems like the two critical sections should not overlap. > > > > Does using lwsync means that these smp_load_acquire > > and smp_store_release guarantees are no longer true? > Thanks for the detailed explanation. > Suppose that CPU 0 stores to a variable, then releases a lock, > CPU 1 acquires that same lock and reads a second variable, > and that CPU 2 writes the second variable, does smp_mb(), and > then reads the first variable. Like this, where we replace the > spinloop by a check in the assertion: > > CPU 0 CPU 1 CPU 2 > ----- ----- ----- > x = 1; r1 = SLA(lock); y = 1; > SSR(lock, 1); r2 = y; smp_mb(); > r3 = x; > > The SSR() is an abbreviation for smp_store_release() and the SLA() > is an abbreviation for smp_load_acquire(). > > Now, if an unlock and following lock act as a full memory barrier, and > given lock, x, and y all initially zero, it should not be possible to > see the following situation: > > r1 == 1 && r2 == 0 && r3 == 0 > > The "r1 == 1" means that the lock was released, the "r2 == 1" means that You mean "r2 == 0"? > CPU 1's load from y happened before CPU 2's assignment to y, and the > "r3 == 0" means that CPU 2's load from x happened before CPU 0's store > to x. If the unlock/lock combination was acting like a full barrier, > this would be impossible. But if you implement both SSR() and SLA() with > lwsync on powerpc, this condition can in fact happen. See scenario W+RWC > on page 2 of: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppc-supplemental/test6.pdf. > > This may seem strange, but when you say "lwsync" you are saying "don't > bother flushing the store buffer", which in turn allows this outcome. Yes, this outcome is certainly not expected. I find the behavior somewhat at odds with the memory barrier documentation: "The use of ACQUIRE and RELEASE operations generally precludes the need for other sorts of memory barrier (but note the exceptions mentioned in the subsection "MMIO write barrier")." > > So if we require that smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release() have > RCsc semantics, which we might well want to do, then your use becomes > legal and powerpc needs smp_store_release() to have a sync instruction > rather than the lighter-weight lwsync instruction. Otherwise, you need > an smp_mb() in the lock-release handoff path. > > Thoughts? If we intend to use smp_load_acquire and smp_store_release extensively for locks, making RCsc semantics the default will simply things a lot. Thanks. Tim > > Thanx, Paul > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>