On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 12:10:18AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> There is something I want to make sure.
> Please see inline comment below.
>
> On 2018/12/14 00:33:15 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> > On 2018/12/13 00:01:33 +0800, Junchang Wang wrote:
> >> On 12/11/18 11:42 PM, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >>> From 7e7c3a20d08831cd64b77a4e8d8f693b4725ef89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:37:11 +0900
> >>> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] CodeSamples: Fix definition of cmpxchg() in api-gcc.h
> >>>
> >>> Do the same change as CodeSamples/formal/litmus/api.h.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> CodeSamples/api-pthreads/api-gcc.h | 5 +++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/CodeSamples/api-pthreads/api-gcc.h b/CodeSamples/api-pthreads/api-gcc.h
> >>> index 3afe340..b66f4b9 100644
> >>> --- a/CodeSamples/api-pthreads/api-gcc.h
> >>> +++ b/CodeSamples/api-pthreads/api-gcc.h
> >>> @@ -168,8 +168,9 @@ struct __xchg_dummy {
> >>> ({ \
> >>> typeof(*ptr) _____actual = (o); \
> >>> \
> >>> - __atomic_compare_exchange_n(ptr, (void *)&_____actual, (n), 1, \
> >>> - __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST) ? (o) : (o)+1; \
> >>> + __atomic_compare_exchange_n((ptr), (void *)&_____actual, (n), 0, \
> >>> + __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
> >>> + _____actual; \
> >>> })
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Akira,
> >>
> >> Another reason that the performance of cmpxchg is catching up with cmpxchg_weak is that __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST is replaced by __ATOMIC_RELAXED in this patch. The use of __ATOMIC_RELAXED means if the CAS primitive fails, the relaxed semantic is used, rather than sequential consistent. Following are some experiment results:
> >>
> >> # If __ATOMIC_RELAXED is used for both cmpxchg and cmpxchg_weak
> >>
> >> ./count_lim_atomic 64 uperf
> >> ns/update: 290
> >>
> >> ./count_lim_atomic_weak 64 uperf
> >> ns/update: 301
> >>
> >>
> >> # and then if __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST is used for both cmpxchg and cmpxchg_weak
> >>
> >> ./count_lim_atomic 64 uperf
> >> ns/update: 316
> >>
> >> ./count_lim_atomic_weak 64 uperf
> >> ns/update: 302
> >>
> >> ./count_lim_atomic 120 uperf
> >> ns/update: 630
> >>
> >> ./count_lim_atomic_weak 120 uperf
> >> ns/update: 568
> >>
> >> The results show that if we want to ensure sequential consistency when the CAS primitive fails, cmpxchg_weak performs better than cmpxchg. It seems that the (type of variation, failure_memorder) pair affects performance. I know that PPC uses LL/SC to simulate CAS. But what's the relationship between a simulated CAS and the memory order. This is interesting because as far as I know, PPC and ARM are using LL/SC to simulate atomic primitives such as CAS and FAA. So FAA might have the same behavior.
> >>
> >> In actually, I'm not very clear about the meaning of different types of failure memory orders. For example, when should we use __ATOMIC_RELAXED, rather than __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, if a CAS fails? What happen if __ATOMIC_RELAXED is used for x86? The one I'm look at is https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html . Do you know some resources about this? I can look into this tomorrow. Thanks.
> >
> > Hi Junchang,
> >
> > In Linux-kernel speak, Documentation/core-api/atomic.rst says:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > atomic_xchg must provide explicit memory barriers around the operation. ::
> >
> > int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *v, int old, int new);
> >
> > This performs an atomic compare exchange operation on the atomic value v,
> > with the given old and new values. Like all atomic_xxx operations,
> > atomic_cmpxchg will only satisfy its atomicity semantics as long as all
> > other accesses of \*v are performed through atomic_xxx operations.
> >
> > atomic_cmpxchg must provide explicit memory barriers around the operation,
> > although if the comparison fails then no memory ordering guarantees are
> > required.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > The routines xchg() and cmpxchg() must provide the same exact
> > memory-barrier semantics as the atomic and bit operations returning
> > values.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The 2nd __ATOMIC_RELAXED to __atomic_compare_exchange_n() matches this
> > lack of requirement.
> >
> > On x86_64, __atomic_compare_exchange_n() is translated to the same code
> > in both cases (with the help of litmus7's cross compiling):
> >
> > #START _litmus_P1
> > xorl %eax, %eax
> > movl $0, 4(%rsp)
> > lock cmpxchgl %r10d, (%rdx)
> > je .L36
> > movl %eax, 4(%rsp)
> > .L36:
> > movl 4(%rsp), %eax
> >
> > There is no difference between the code with __ATOMIC_RELAXED and
> > the code with __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST as the 2nd parameter. As you can see,
> > there is no memory barrier instruction emitted.
> >
> > On PPC, there is a difference. With __ATOMIC_RELAXED as 2nd parameter,
> > the code looks like:
> >
> > #START _litmus_P1
> > sync
> > .L34:
> > lwarx 7,0,9
> > cmpwi 0,7,0
> > bne 0,.L35
> > stwcx. 5,0,9
> > bne 0,.L34
> > isync
> > .L35:
> >
> > , OTOH with __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST as 2nd argument:
> >
> > #START _litmus_P1
> > sync
> > .L34:
> > lwarx 7,0,9
> > cmpwi 0,7,0
> > bne 0,.L35
> > stwcx. 5,0,9
> > bne 0,.L34
> > .L35:
> > isync
> >
>
> In this asm code snippets, the barrier instruction at the end of
> cmpxchg() is "isync".
>
> In arch/powerpc/include/asm/synch.h of Linux kernel source tree,
> both PPC_ATOMIC_ENTRY_BARRIER and PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER are
> defined as '"\n" stringify_in_c(sync) "\n"', which will result
> in "sync".
>
> IIUC, "isync" of PowerPC is not good enough for __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST,
> is it?
By itself, no, but in combination with the "sync" instruction at
the beginning, combined with the ordering of other __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST
operations, it actually is sufficient. For more information, please
see:
http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2745.html
And this is an update that is mostly irrelevant on modern hardware:
http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/scalability/paper/N2745r.2011.03.04a.html
Note also that an lwsync instruction can be substituted for each isync,
which can sometimes provide better performance.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks, Akira
>
> > See the difference of position of label .L35.
> > (Note that we are talking about strong version of cmpxchg().)
> >
> > Does the above example make sense to you?
> >
> > Thanks, Akira
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --Junchang
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> static __inline__ int atomic_cmpxchg(atomic_t *v, int old, int new)
> >>>
> >
>
