On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:19:15PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > You seem to be assuming that the unlock+lock rule applies only when the > > unlock and the lock are executed by the same CPU. This is not always > > the case. For example, when the unlock and lock are operating on the > > same lock variable, the critical sections must appear to be ordered from > > the perspective of some other CPU, even when that CPU is not holding > > any lock. > > Umm. Isn't that pretty much *guaranteed* by any cache-coherent locking scheme. No, there really are exceptions. In fact, one such exception showed up a few days ago on this very list, which is why I started complaining. > The unlock - by virtue of being an unlock - means that all ops within > the first critical region must be visible in the cache coherency > protocol before the unlock is visible. Same goes for the lock on the > other CPU wrt the memory accesses within that locked region. > > IOW, I'd argue that any locking model that depends on cache coherency > - as opposed to some magic external locks independent of cache > coherenecy - *has* to follow the rules in that section as far as I can > see. Or it's not a locking model at all, and lets the cache accesses > leak outside of the critical section. Start with Tim Chen's most recent patches for MCS locking, the ones that do the lock handoff using smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire(). Add to that Peter Zijlstra's patch that uses PowerPC lwsync for both smp_store_release() and smp_load_acquire(). Run the resulting lock at high contention, so that all lock handoffs are done via the queue. Then you will have something that acts like a lock from the viewpoint of CPU holding that lock, but which does -not- guarantee that an unlock+lock acts like a full memory barrier if the unlock and lock run on two different CPUs, and if the observer is running on a third CPU. Easy fix -- make powerpc'd smp_store_release() use sync instead of lwsync. Slows down the PowerPC circular-buffer implementation a bit, but I believe that this is fixable separately. More on that later. And if you, the Intel guys, and the AMD guys all say that the x86 code path does the right thing, then I won't argue, especially since the formalisms seem to agree. Quite surprising to me, but if that is the way it works, well and good. That said, I will check a few other CPU families for completeness. > Btw, you can see the difference in the very next section, where you > have *non-cache-coherent* (IO) accesses. So once you have different > rules for the data and the lock accesses, you can get different > results. And yes, there have been broken SMP models (historically) > where locking was "separate" from the memory system, and you could get > coherence only by taking the right lock. But I really don't think we > care about such locking models (for memory - again, IO accesses are > different, exactly because locking and data are in different "ordering > domains"). Yes, MMIO accesses add another set of rules. I have not been talking about MMIO accesses, however. > IOW, I don't think you *can* violate that "locks vs memory accesses" > model with any system where locking is in the same ordering domain as > the data (ie we lock by using cache coherency). And locking using > cache coherency is imnsho the only valid model for SMP. No? No, I have not been considering trying to make these locks work in the absence of cache coherence. Not that crazy, not today, anyway. But even with cache coherence, you really can create a lock that acts like a lock from the viewpoint of CPUs holding that lock, but which violates the "locks vs memory accesses" model. For example, the combination of Tim's most recent MCS lock patches with Peter's most recent smp_store_release()/smp_load_acquire() patch that I called out above. Sheesh, and I haven't even started reviewing the qrwlock... :-/ 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>