lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] tools/memory-model: Add write ordering by release-acquire and by locks
Will:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Andrea Parri wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 07:30:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > I think the second example would preclude us using LDAPR for load-acquire,
>
> > I don't think it's a moot point. We want new architectures to implement
> > acquire/release efficiently, and it's not unlikely that they will have
> > acquire loads that are similar in semantics to LDAPR. This patch prevents
> > them from doing so,
>
> By this same argument, you should not be a "big fan" of rfi-rel-acq in ppo ;)
> consider, e.g., the two litmus tests below: what am I missing?

This is an excellent point, which seems to have gotten lost in the
shuffle. I'd like to see your comments.

In essence, if you're using release-acquire instructions that only
provide RCpc consistency, does store-release followed by load-acquire
of the same address provide read-read ordering? In theory it doesn't
have to, because if the value from the store-release is forwarded to
the load-acquire then:

LOAD A
STORE-RELEASE X, v
LOAD-ACQUIRE X
LOAD B

could be executed by the CPU in the order:

LOAD-ACQUIRE X
LOAD B
LOAD A
STORE-RELEASE X, v

thereby accessing A and B out of program order without violating the
requirements on the release or the acquire.

Of course PPC doesn't allow this, but should we rule it out entirely?

> C MP+fencewmbonceonce+pooncerelease-rfireleaseacquire-poacquireonce
>
> {}
>
> P0(int *x, int *y)
> {
> WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> smp_wmb();
> WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
> }
>
> P1(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> {
> r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> smp_store_release(z, 1);
> r1 = smp_load_acquire(z);
> r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> }
>
> exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r1=1 /\ 1:r2=0)
>
>
> AArch64 MP+dmb.st+popl-rfilq-poqp
> "DMB.STdWW Rfe PodRWPL RfiLQ PodRRQP Fre"
> Generator=diyone7 (version 7.49+02(dev))
> Prefetch=0:x=F,0:y=W,1:y=F,1:x=T
> Com=Rf Fr
> Orig=DMB.STdWW Rfe PodRWPL RfiLQ PodRRQP Fre
> {
> 0:X1=x; 0:X3=y;
> 1:X1=y; 1:X3=z; 1:X6=x;
> }
> P0 | P1 ;
> MOV W0,#1 | LDR W0,[X1] ;
> STR W0,[X1] | MOV W2,#1 ;
> DMB ST | STLR W2,[X3] ;
> MOV W2,#1 | LDAPR W4,[X3] ;
> STR W2,[X3] | LDR W5,[X6] ;
> exists
> (1:X0=1 /\ 1:X4=1 /\ 1:X5=0)

There's also read-write ordering, in the form of the LB pattern:

P0(int *x, int *y, int *z)
{
r0 = READ_ONCE(*x);
smp_store_release(z, 1);
r1 = smp_load_acquire(z);
WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
}

P1(int *x, int *y)
{
r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
smp_mp();
WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
}

exists (0:r0=1 /\ 1:r2=1)

Would this be allowed if smp_load_acquire() was implemented with LDAPR?
If the answer is yes then we will have to remove the rfi-rel-acq and
rel-rf-acq-po relations from the memory model entirely.

Alan

PS: Paul, is the patch which introduced rel-rf-acq-po currently present
in any of your branches? I couldn't find it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-03 19:29    [W:0.213 / U:6.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site