On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote:
> > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data dependencies are not required to be
> > > >>>transitive, in other words, they are not required to flow from one CPU to
> > > >>>another without the help of an explicit memory barrier.
> > > >>I don't see any reliable way to fit WRC+addr+addr into "DATA
> > > >>DEPENDENCY BARRIERS" section recommendation to have data dependency
> > > >>barrier between read of a shared pointer/index and read the shared
> > > >>data based on that pointer. If you have this two reads, it doesn't
> > > >>matter the rest of scenario, you should put the dependency barrier
> > > >>in code anyway. If you don't do it in WRC+addr+addr scenario then
> > > >>after years it can be easily changed to different scenario which
> > > >>fits some of scenario in "DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS" section and
> > > >>fails.
> > > >The trick is that lockless_dereference() contains an
> > > >smp_read_barrier_depends():
> > > >
> > > >#define lockless_dereference(p) \
> > > >({ \
> > > > typeof(p) _________p1 = READ_ONCE(p); \
> > > > smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> > > > (_________p1); \
> > > >})
> > > >
> > > >Or am I missing your point?
> > >
> > > WRC+addr+addr has no any barrier. lockless_dereference() has a
> > > barrier. I don't see a common points between this and that in your
> > > answer, sorry.
> >
> > Me, I am wondering what WRC+addr+addr has to do with anything at all.
>
> See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more
> like a variant on WWC and I couldn't really follow it).
I will revisit my WRC Linux example. And yes, creating litmus tests
that use non-fake dependencies is still a bit of an undertaking. :-/
I am sure that it will seem more natural with time and experience...
> > <Going back through earlier email>
> >
> > OK, so it looks like Will was asking not about WRC+addr+addr, but instead
> > about WRC+sync+addr. This would drop an smp_mb() into cpu2() in my
> > earlier example, which needs to provide ordering.
> >
> > I am guessing that the manual's "Older instructions which must be globally
> > performed when the SYNC instruction completes" provides the equivalent
> > of ARM/Power A-cumulativity, which can be thought of as transitivity
> > backwards in time.
>
> I couldn't make that leap. In particular, the manual's "Detailed
> Description" sections explicitly refer to program-order:
>
> Every synchronizable specified memory instruction (loads or stores or
> both) that occurs in the instruction stream before the SYNC
> instruction must reach a stage in the load/store datapath after which
> no instruction re-ordering is possible before any synchronizable
> specified memory instruction which occurs after the SYNC instruction
> in the instruction stream reaches the same stage in the load/store
> datapath.
>
> Will
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-January/399765.html
All good points. I think we all agree that the MIPS documentation could
use significant help. And given that I work for the company that produced
the analogous documentation for PowerPC, that is saying something. ;-)
We simply can't know if MIPS's memory ordering is sufficient for the
Linux kernel given its current implementation of the ordering primitives
and its current documentation.
I feel a bit better than I did earlier due to Leonid's response to my
earlier litmus-test examples. But I do recommend some serious stress
testing of MIPS on a good set of litmus tests. Much nicer finding issues
that way than as random irreproducible strange behavior!
Thanx, Paul
