Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] documentation: Add acquire/release barriers to pairing rules

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 09:59:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:24:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > It is possible to pair acquire and release barriers with other barriers,
> > so this commit adds them to the list in the SMP barrier pairing section.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> > +A write barrier should always be paired with a data dependency barrier,
> > +acquire barrier, release barrier, or read barrier, though a general
> > +barrier would also be viable.
> 
>    Similarly a read barrier or a data
> > +dependency barrier should always be paired with at least a write barrier,
> > +an acquire barrier, or a release barrier, though, again, a general
> > +barrier is viable:
> 
> When I first read the Changelog I though you were going to add things
> like:
> 
>   An acquire barrier should be paired with a release barrier, however
>   .... barrier is also viable.
> 
>   A release barrier should be paired with an acquire barrier,... etc.
> 
> Now the above does seem to imply such rules but it isn't explicit in
> them, since it only lists the requirements for read/write. Now since the
> entire thing is indeed symmetric the implications are fairly strong,
> still.

Good point, how about the following?

	General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair
	with most other types of barriers, albeit without transitivity.
	An acquire barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also
	pair with other barriers, including of course general barriers.
	A write barrier pairs with a data dependency barrier, an acquire
	barrier, a release barrier, a read barrier, or a general barrier.
	Similarly a read barrier or a data dependency barrier pairs
	with a write barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier,
	or a general barrier:

> Also, it might be good to have a section on the ramifications of pairing
> acquire/release with other than themselves, I have the feeling there's
> subtle things there.

It can get quite subtle.  For the time being, I am dodging this subtlety
by saying that only general barriers provide transitivity (see the
"TRANSITIVITY" section).

To give but one example of the subtlety, given X, Y, and Z all initially
zero where it matters:

	X=2;		Y=2;		Z=2;
	smp_wmb();	smp_wmb();	smp_wmb();
	Y=1;		Z=1;		X=1;

	BUG_ON(X==2 && Y==2 && Z==2); /* Never triggers. */

But:

	X=2;		Y=2;		Z=2;
	smp_wmb();	smp_wmb();	smp_mb();
	Y=1;		Z=1;		r1=X;

	BUG_ON(r1==0 && Y==2 && Z==2); /* Can trigger!!! */

Maybe some day we should capture this subtlety in memory-barriers.txt,
but we will first need a new generation of small children who are not
scared by the current document.  ;-)

								Thanx, Paul

--
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/