On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 08:04:21PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On 2017/09/16 18:07:30 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 08:01:45PM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> I'm a bit disturbed by the description in Section 14.3.1 "Memory-Reference
> >> Restrictions" quoted below:
> >>
> >>> Oddly enough, the compiler is within its rights to use a variable
> >>> as temporary storage just before a store to that variable, thus
> >>> inventing stores to that variable.
> >>> Fortunately, most compilers avoid this sort of thing, at least outside
> >>> of stack variables.
> >>> Nevertheless, using WRITE_ONCE() (or declaring the variable
> >>> volatile) should prevent this sort of thing.
> >>> But take care: If you have a translation unit that uses that variable,
> >>> and never makes a volatile access to it, the compiler has no way of
> >>> knowing that it needs to be careful.
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if using WRITE_ONCE() in a translation unit is really
> >> enough to prevent invention of stores.
> >>
> >> Accessing via a volatile-cast pointer guarantees the access is not
> >> optimized out (and hopefully the referenced value is respected).
> >>
> >> But I suspect that it has any effect in preventing invention of extra
> >> loads/stores.
> >>
> >> Isn't declaring the variable volatile necessary for the guarantee?
> >>
> >> In practice, as is described in the above quote: "Fortunately, most
> >> compilers avoid this sort of thing, at least outside of stack variables",
> >> we can assume non-volatile shared variables are not spilled out to
> >> the variables themselves as far as GCC/LLVM is concerned.
> >> But this is compiler dependent, I suppose.
> >
> > I suspect that it will turn out to be impossible for the compiler to
> > actually invent these stores in the general case. For example, it might
> > be that there is some lock held or other synchronization mechanism unknown
> > to the compiler that prevents this behavior. But I haven't fully worked
> > this out yet.
>
> You mean the invented stores wouldn't be visible from other threads anyway?
> In a meaningful parallel code, that can be the case.
I mean that it is very hard to prove that inventing a store isn't introducing
a data race, which would be a violation of the standard. The one case I know
of where the compiler can be sure that it is within its rights to invent the
store is before a normal store to a variable.
Otherwise, it might be (for example) that one must hold a lock to legally
update a given variable, and that lock might or might not be held at a given
point in the code. But if the compiler sees a plain store, the compiler
knows that it is OK to update at that point. So the compiler can invent
a store prior to the existing store, as long as there is no memory barrier,
compiler barrier, lock acquisition/release, atomic operation, etc., between
the original store and the compiler's invented store.
> > But I do know that if you just do plain stores, the compiler is fully
> > within its rights to invent stores preceding any given plain store.
>
> So, the rules to use WRITE_ONCE() is something like the following?
>
> ---
> 1) Declare the variable without volatile.
Agreed.
> 2) READ_ONCE() and plain loads can be mixed. A plain load will see
> a value at least newer than or equal to the one obtained at the
> program-order most recent READ_ONCE().
I am not entirely sure of this one. But if there is a barrier() or
stronger between the READ_ONCE() and the plain load, then yes.
> 3) WRITE_ONCE() should not be mixed with plain stores when invention
> of stores is to be avoided.
Agreed.
> Invention of stores is the opposite of fusing stores.
> Suppose you don't want to update progress in the while loop:
>
> while (!am_done()) {
> do_something(p);
> tmp++;
> }
> progress = tmp;
>
> The compiler might transform this to
>
> while (!am_done()) {
> do_something(p);
> progress++;
> }
But only as long as the compiler knows that do_something() doesn't
contain any ordering directives.
> if it wants to avoid allocation of a register/stack to tmp for whatever
> reason. WRITE_ONCE() prevents the unintended accesses of progress:
>
> while (!am_done()) {
> do_something(p);
> tmp++;
> }
> WRITE_ONCE(progress, tmp);
Agreed, this would prevent the update to "progress" from being pulled
into the loop.
> ---
> Adding this example in the text might be too verbose.
> Would a Quick Quiz be reasonable?
Might be good in the section on protecting memory references, and putting
it into a quick quiz or two makes a lot of sense.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks, Akira
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe perfbook" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
