Re: [PATCH] Documentation/memory-barriers: fix a error that mistakesa CPU notion in Section Transitivity

[Zhan Jianyu]

Hi, Rob,  thanks reviewing
and I'm sorry for my careless writing.

I resend the revised patch below:

---

The memory-barriers document may has an error in Section TRANSITIVITY.

For transitivity, see an example below, given that

* CPU 2's load from X follows  CPU 1's store to X,
* CPU 2's load from Y preceds CPU 3's store to Y.


 CPU 1                   CPU 2                   CPU 3
 =====================================================================
            { X = 0, Y = 0 }
 STORE X=1         LOAD X                  STORE Y=1
                            <read barrier>          <general barrier>
                            LOAD Y                  LOAD X


The <read barrier> in CPU 2 is inadquate, because it could _only_ guarantees
that load operation _happen before_ load operation after the barrier, with
respect to CPU 3, which constrained by a general barrier, but provide _NO_
guarantee that CPU 1' store X will happen before the <read barrier>.

Therefore, if this example runs on a system where CPUs 1 and 3 share a
store buffer
or a level of cache, CPU 3 might have early access to CPU 1's writes.

The original text has mistaken CPU 2 for CPU 3, so this patch fixes
this, and adds
a paragraph to explain why a <full barrier> should guarantee this.

Signed-off-by: Zhan Jianyu <nasa4836@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt |   11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index fa5d8a9..590a5a9 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -992,6 +992,13 @@ transitivity.  Therefore, in the above example,
if CPU 2's load from X
 returns 1 and its load from Y returns 0, then CPU 3's load from X must
 also return 1.

+The key point is that CPU 1's storing 1 to X precedes CPU 2's loading 1
+from X, and CPU 2's loading 0 from Y precedes CPU 3's storing 1 to Y,
+which implies an ordering that the general barrier in CPU 2 guarantees:
+all store and load operations must happen before those after the barrier
+with respect to CPU 3, which is constrained by a general barrier, too.
+Thus, CPU 3's load from X must return 1.
+
 However, transitivity is -not- guaranteed for read or write barriers.
 For example, suppose that CPU 2's general barrier in the above example
 is changed to a read barrier as shown below:
@@ -1009,8 +1016,8 @@ and CPU 3's load from X to return 0.

 The key point is that although CPU 2's read barrier orders its pair
 of loads, it does not guarantee to order CPU 1's store.  Therefore, if
-this example runs on a system where CPUs 1 and 2 share a store buffer
-or a level of cache, CPU 2 might have early access to CPU 1's writes.
+this example runs on a system where CPUs 1 and 3 share a store buffer
+or a level of cache, CPU 3 might have early access to CPU 1's writes.
 General barriers are therefore required to ensure that all CPUs agree
 on the combined order of CPU 1's and CPU 2's accesses.




--

Regards,
Zhan Jianyu


On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 05:34:22 AM, larmbr wrote:
>>
>> The memory-barriers document may has a error in Section TRANSITIVITY.
>>
>> For transitivity, see a example below, given that
>>
>> * CPU 2's load from X follows CPU 1's store to X, and
>>   CPU 2's load from Y preceds CPU 3's store to Y.
>
>
> I'd prefer somebody with a better understanding of this code review it
> before merging. I'm not a memory barrier semantics expert, I can't tell you
> if this _is_ a bug.
>
>
>> +The key point is that CPU 1's storing 1 to X preceds CPU 2's loading 1
>
>
> precedes
>
>
>> +from X, and CPU 2's loading 0 from Y preceds CPU 3's storing 1 to Y,
>
>
> precedes
>
>
>> +which implies a ordering that the general barrier in CPU 2 guarantees:
>
>
> an ordering
>
>
>> +all store and load operations must happen before those after the barrier
>> +with respect to view of CPU 3, which constrained by a general barrier,
>> too.
>
>
> the view of (or possibly "from the point of view of", the current phrasing
> is awkward)
>
> which is constrained
>
> Rob
--
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/