Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference
> > > > > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they
> > > > > interact.
> > > > 
> > > > Hoping my memory-barrier.txt patch helps here...
> > > 
> > > Yes, that seems a good start. But yesterday you raised the 'fun' point
> > > of two globally ordered sequences connected by a single local link.
> > 
> > The conclusion that I am slowly coming to is that litmus tests should
> > not be thought of as linear chains, but rather as cycles.  If you think
> > of it as a cycle, then it doesn't matter where the local link is, just
> > how many of them and how they are connected.
> 
> Do you have some examples of this? I'm struggling to make it work in my
> mind, or are you talking specifically in the context of the kernel
> memory model?

Now that you mention it, maybe it would be best to keep the transitive
and non-transitive separate for the time being anyway.  Just because it
might be possible to deal with does not necessarily mean that we should
be encouraging it.  ;-)

> > But I will admit that there are some rather strange litmus tests that
> > challenge this cycle-centric view, for example, the one shown below.
> > It turns out that herd and ppcmem disagree on the outcome.  (The Power
> > architects side with ppcmem.)
> > 
> > > And I think I'm still confused on LWSYNC (in the smp_wmb case) when one
> > > of the stores looses a conflict, and if that scenario matters. If it
> > > does, we should inspect the same case for other barriers.
> > 
> > Indeed.  I am still working on how these should be described.  My
> > current thought is to be quite conservative on what ordering is
> > actually respected, however, the current task is formalizing how
> > RCU plays with the rest of the memory model.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4
> > ""
> > (* When the Group-B sets from two different barriers involve instructions in
> >    the same thread, within that thread one set must contain the other.
> > 
> > 	P0	P1	P2
> > 	Rx=1	Wy=1	Wz=2
> > 	dep.	lwsync	lwsync
> > 	Ry=0	Wz=1	Wx=1
> > 	Rz=1
> > 
> > 	assert(!(z=2))
> > 
> >    Forbidden by ppcmem, allowed by herd.
> > *)
> > {
> > 0:r1=x; 0:r2=y; 0:r3=z;
> > 1:r1=x; 1:r2=y; 1:r3=z; 1:r4=1;
> > 2:r1=x; 2:r2=y; 2:r3=z; 2:r4=1; 2:r5=2;
> > }
> >  P0		| P1		| P2		;
> >  lwz r6,0(r1)	| stw r4,0(r2)	| stw r5,0(r3)	;
> >  xor r7,r6,r6	| lwsync	| lwsync	;
> >  lwzx r7,r7,r2	| stw r4,0(r3)	| stw r4,0(r1)	;
> >  lwz r8,0(r3)	|		|		;
> > 
> > exists
> > (z=2 /\ 0:r6=1 /\ 0:r7=0 /\ 0:r8=1)
> 
> That really hurts. Assuming that the "assert(!(z=2))" is actually there
> to constrain the coherence order of z to be {0->1->2}, then I think that
> this test is forbidden on arm using dmb instead of lwsync. That said, I
> also don't think the Rz=1 in P0 changes anything.

What about the smp_wmb() variant of dmb that orders only stores?

> The double negatives don't help here! (it is forbidden to guarantee that
> z is not always 2).

Yes, this is a weird one, and I don't know of any use of it.

							Thanx, Paul