On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 02:44:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:04:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 01:19:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Suppose we have something like the following, where "a" and "x" are both
> > > initially zero:
> > >
> > > CPU 0 CPU 1
> > > ----- -----
> > >
> > > WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(a, 2);
> > > r3 = xchg(&a, 1); smp_mb();
> > > r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
> > >
> > > If xchg() is fully ordered, we should never observe both CPUs'
> > > r3 values being zero, correct?
> > >
> > > And wouldn't this be represented by the following litmus test?
> > >
> > > PPC SB+lwsync-RMW2-lwsync+st-sync-leading
> > > ""
> > > {
> > > 0:r1=1; 0:r2=x; 0:r3=3; 0:r10=0 ; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=a;
> > > 1:r1=2; 1:r2=x; 1:r3=3; 1:r10=0 ; 1:r11=0; 1:r12=a;
> > > }
> > > P0 | P1 ;
> > > stw r1,0(r2) | stw r1,0(r12) ;
> > > lwsync | sync ;
> > > lwarx r11,r10,r12 | lwz r3,0(r2) ;
> > > stwcx. r1,r10,r12 | ;
> > > bne Fail0 | ;
> > > mr r3,r11 | ;
> > > Fail0: | ;
> > > exists
> > > (0:r3=0 /\ a=2 /\ 1:r3=0)
> > >
> > > I left off P0's trailing sync because there is nothing for it to order
> > > against in this particular litmus test. I tried adding it and verified
> > > that it has no effect.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something here? If not, it seems to me that you need
> > > the leading lwsync to instead be a sync.
I'm afraid more than that, the above litmus also shows that
CPU 0 CPU 1
----- -----
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(a, 2);
r3 = xchg_release(&a, 1); smp_mb();
r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
(0:r3 == 0 && 1:r3 == 0 && a == 2) is not prohibitted
in the implementation of this patchset, which should be disallowed by
the semantics of RELEASE, right?
And even:
CPU 0 CPU 1
----- -----
WRITE_ONCE(x, 1); WRITE_ONCE(a, 2);
smp_store_release(&a, 1); smp_mb();
r3 = READ_ONCE(x);
(1:r3 == 0 && a == 2) is not prohibitted
shows by:
PPC weird-lwsync
""
{
0:r1=1; 0:r2=x; 0:r3=3; 0:r12=a;
1:r1=2; 1:r2=x; 1:r3=3; 1:r12=a;
}
P0 | P1 ;
stw r1,0(r2) | stw r1,0(r12) ;
lwsync | sync ;
stw r1,0(r12) | lwz r3,0(r2) ;
exists
(a=2 /\ 1:r3=0)
Please find something I'm (or the tool is) missing, maybe we can't use
(a == 2) as a indication that STORE on CPU 1 happens after STORE on CPU
0?
And there is really something I find strange, see below.
> >
> > So the scenario that would fail would be this one, right?
> >
> > a = x = 0
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> >
> > r3 = load_locked (&a);
> > a = 2;
> > sync();
> > r3 = x;
> > x = 1;
> > lwsync();
> > if (!store_cond(&a, 1))
> > goto again
> >
> >
> > Where we hoist the load way up because lwsync allows this.
>
> That scenario would end up with a==1 rather than a==2.
>
> > I always thought this would fail because CPU1's store to @a would fail
> > the store_cond() on CPU0 and we'd do the 'again' thing, re-issuing the
> > load and now seeing the new value (2).
>
> The stwcx. failure was one thing that prevented a number of other
> misordering cases. The problem is that we have to let go of the notion
> of an implicit global clock.
>
> To that end, the herd tool can make a diagram of what it thought
> happened, and I have attached it. I used this diagram to try and force
> this scenario at https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppcmem/index.html#PPC,
> and succeeded. Here is the sequence of events:
>
> o Commit P0's write. The model offers to propagate this write
> to the coherence point and to P1, but don't do so yet.
>
> o Commit P1's write. Similar offers, but don't take them up yet.
>
> o Commit P0's lwsync.
>
> o Execute P0's lwarx, which reads a=0. Then commit it.
>
> o Commit P0's stwcx. as successful. This stores a=1.
>
> o Commit P0's branch (not taken).
>
So at this point, P0's write to 'a' has propagated to P1, right? But
P0's write to 'x' hasn't, even there is a lwsync between them, right?
Doesn't the lwsync prevent this from happening?
If at this point P0's write to 'a' hasn't propagated then when?
Regards,
Boqun
> o Commit P0's final register-to-register move.
>
> o Commit P1's sync instruction.
>
> o There is now nothing that can happen in either processor.
> P0 is done, and P1 is waiting for its sync. Therefore,
> propagate P1's a=2 write to the coherence point and to
> the other thread.
>
> o There is still nothing that can happen in either processor.
> So pick the barrier propagate, then the acknowledge sync.
>
> o P1 can now execute its read from x. Because P0's write to
> x is still waiting to propagate to P1, this still reads
> x=0. Execute and commit, and we now have both r3 registers
> equal to zero and the final value a=2.
>
> o Clean up by propagating the write to x everywhere, and
> propagating the lwsync.
>
> And the "exists" clause really does trigger: 0:r3=0; 1:r3=0; [a]=2;
>
> I am still not 100% confident of my litmus test. It is quite possible
> that I lost something in translation, but that is looking less likely.
>
> > > Of course, if I am not missing something, then this applies also to the
> > > value-returning RMW atomic operations that you pulled this pattern from.
> > > If so, it would seem that I didn't think through all the possibilities
> > > back when PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER moved to sync... In fact, I believe
> > > that I worried about the RMW atomic operation acting as a barrier,
> > > but not as the load/store itself. :-/
> >
> > AARGH64 does something very similar; it does something like:
> >
> > ll
> > ...
> > sc-release
> >
> > mb
> >
> > Which I assumed worked for the same reason, any change to the variable
> > would fail the sc, and we go for round 2, now observing the new value.
>
> I have to defer to Will on this one. You are right that ARM and PowerPC
> do have similar memory models, but there are some differences.
>
> Thanx, Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature