Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v4 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a full barrier

[Peter Zijlstra]

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.

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.

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).

> 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.
--
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/