Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v4 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a full barrier
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Sat Oct 24 2015 - 06:26:42 EST
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:07:16PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 09:48:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:35:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > I ask this because I recall Peter once bought up a discussion:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/596
> > > > So a full barrier on one side of these operations is enough, I think.
> > > > IOW, there is no need to strengthen these operations.
> > >
> > > Do we need to also worry about other futex use cases?
> > Worry, always!
> > But yes, there is one more specific usecase, which is that of a
> > condition variable.
> > When we go sleep on a futex, we might want to assume visibility of the
> > stores done by the thread that woke us by the time we wake up.
> But the thing is futex atomics in PPC are already RELEASE(pc)+ACQUIRE
> and imply a full barrier, is an RELEASE(sc) semantics really needed
For this, no, the current code should be fine I think.
> Further more, is this condition variable visibility guaranteed by other
> part of futex? Because in futex_wake_op:
> double_unlock_hb(hb1, hb2); <- RELEASE(pc) barrier here.
> and in futex_wait():
> futex_wait_queue_me(hb, &q, to); <- schedule() here
> iput()/mmdrop(); <- a full barrier
> The RELEASE(pc) barrier pairs with the full barrier, therefore the
> userspace wakee can observe the condition variable modification.
Right, futexes are a pain; and I think we all agreed we didn't want to
go rely on implementation details unless we absolutely _have_ to.
> > And.. aside from the thoughts I outlined in the email referenced above,
> > there is always the chance people accidentally rely on the strong
> > ordering on their x86 CPU and find things come apart when ran on their
> > ARM/MIPS/etc..
> > There are a fair number of people who use the raw futex call and we have
> > 0 visibility into many of them. The assumed and accidental ordering
> > guarantees will forever remain a mystery.
> Understood. That's truely a potential problem. Considering not all the
> architectures imply a full barrier at user<->kernel boundries, maybe we
> can use one bit in the opcode of the futex system call to indicate
> whether userspace treats futex as fully ordered. Like:
> #define FUTEX_ORDER_SEQ_CST 0
> #define FUTEX_ORDER_RELAXED 64 (bit 7 and bit 8 are already used)
Not unless there's an actual performance problem with any of this.
Futexes are painful enough as is.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/