On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference
> > > > > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they
> > > > > interact.
> > > >
> > > > Hoping my memory-barrier.txt patch helps here...
> > >
> > > Yes, that seems a good start. But yesterday you raised the 'fun' point
> > > of two globally ordered sequences connected by a single local link.
> >
> > The conclusion that I am slowly coming to is that litmus tests should
> > not be thought of as linear chains, but rather as cycles. If you think
> > of it as a cycle, then it doesn't matter where the local link is, just
> > how many of them and how they are connected.
>
> Do you have some examples of this? I'm struggling to make it work in my
> mind, or are you talking specifically in the context of the kernel
> memory model?
Now that you mention it, maybe it would be best to keep the transitive
and non-transitive separate for the time being anyway. Just because it
might be possible to deal with does not necessarily mean that we should
be encouraging it. ;-)
> > But I will admit that there are some rather strange litmus tests that
> > challenge this cycle-centric view, for example, the one shown below.
> > It turns out that herd and ppcmem disagree on the outcome. (The Power
> > architects side with ppcmem.)
> >
> > > And I think I'm still confused on LWSYNC (in the smp_wmb case) when one
> > > of the stores looses a conflict, and if that scenario matters. If it
> > > does, we should inspect the same case for other barriers.
> >
> > Indeed. I am still working on how these should be described. My
> > current thought is to be quite conservative on what ordering is
> > actually respected, however, the current task is formalizing how
> > RCU plays with the rest of the memory model.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4
> > ""
> > (* When the Group-B sets from two different barriers involve instructions in
> > the same thread, within that thread one set must contain the other.
> >
> > P0 P1 P2
> > Rx=1 Wy=1 Wz=2
> > dep. lwsync lwsync
> > Ry=0 Wz=1 Wx=1
> > Rz=1
> >
> > assert(!(z=2))
> >
> > Forbidden by ppcmem, allowed by herd.
> > *)
> > {
> > 0:r1=x; 0:r2=y; 0:r3=z;
> > 1:r1=x; 1:r2=y; 1:r3=z; 1:r4=1;
> > 2:r1=x; 2:r2=y; 2:r3=z; 2:r4=1; 2:r5=2;
> > }
> > P0 | P1 | P2 ;
> > lwz r6,0(r1) | stw r4,0(r2) | stw r5,0(r3) ;
> > xor r7,r6,r6 | lwsync | lwsync ;
> > lwzx r7,r7,r2 | stw r4,0(r3) | stw r4,0(r1) ;
> > lwz r8,0(r3) | | ;
> >
> > exists
> > (z=2 /\ 0:r6=1 /\ 0:r7=0 /\ 0:r8=1)
>
> That really hurts. Assuming that the "assert(!(z=2))" is actually there
> to constrain the coherence order of z to be {0->1->2}, then I think that
> this test is forbidden on arm using dmb instead of lwsync. That said, I
> also don't think the Rz=1 in P0 changes anything.
What about the smp_wmb() variant of dmb that orders only stores?
> The double negatives don't help here! (it is forbidden to guarantee that
> z is not always 2).
Yes, this is a weird one, and I don't know of any use of it.
Thanx, Paul
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
