This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compilers and RCU readers: Once more unto the breach!
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>
- Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "c++std-parallel at accu dot org" <c++std-parallel at accu dot org>, "linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, p796231 <Peter dot Sewell at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk>, "mark dot batty at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk" <Mark dot Batty at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel dot org>, "michaelw at ca dot ibm dot com" <michaelw at ca dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 05:15:22 -0700
- Subject: Re: Compilers and RCU readers: Once more unto the breach!
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150520005510 dot GA23559 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <CA+55aFy_8V-rbE9FQMHx6tXjj8HHKZuKSJvnRPVYvpk46EQA1g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CA+55aFxOtcB8AYCpLQBGSXK=8_Vh4uDs5HEpzGpPy+hgz542ag at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150520024148 dot GD6776 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20150520114745 dot GC11498 at arm dot com>
- Reply-to: paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:10:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > > <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > So I think you're better off just saying that operations designed to
> > > drop significant bits break the dependency chain, and give things like
> > > "& 1" and "(char *)ptr-(uintptr_t)ptr" as examples of such.
> > >
> > > Making that just an extension of your existing "& 0" language would
> > > seem to be natural.
> > Works for me! I added the following bullet to the list of things
> > that break dependencies:
> > If a pointer is part of a dependency chain, and if the values
> > added to or subtracted from that pointer cancel the pointer
> > value so as to allow the compiler to precisely determine the
> > resulting value, then the resulting value will not be part of
> > any dependency chain. For example, if p is part of a dependency
> > chain, then ((char *)p-(uintptr_t)p)+65536 will not be.
> > Seem reasonable?
> Whilst I understand what you're saying (the ARM architecture makes these
> sorts of distinctions when calling out dependency-based ordering), it
> feels like we're dangerously close to defining the difference between a
> true and a false dependency. If we want to do this in the context of the
> C language specification, you run into issues because you need to evaluate
> the program in order to determine data values in order to determine the
> nature of the dependency.
Indeed, something like this does -not- carry a dependency from the
memory_order_consume load to q:
char *p, q;
p = atomic_load_explicit(&gp, memory_order_consume);
q = gq + (intptr_t)p - (intptr_t)p;
If this was compiled with -O0, ARM and Power might well carry a
dependency, but given any optimization, the assembly language would have
no hint of any such dependency. So I am not seeing any particular danger.
> You tackle this above by saying "to allow the compiler to precisely
> determine the resulting value", but I can't see how that can be cleanly
> fitted into something like the C language specification.
I am sure that there will be significant rework from where this document
is to language appropriate from the standard. Which is why I am glad
that Jens is taking an interest in this, as he is particularly good at
producing standards language.
> Even if it can,
> then we'd need to reword the "?:" treatment that you currently have:
> "If a pointer is part of a dependency chain, and that pointer appears
> in the entry of a ?: expression selected by the condition, then the
> chain extends to the result."
> which I think requires the state of the condition to be known statically
> if we only want to extend the chain from the selected expression. In the
> general case, wouldn't a compiler have to assume that the chain is
> extended from both?
In practice, yes, if the compiler cannot determine which expression is
selected, it must arrange for the dependency to be carried from either,
depending on the run-time value of the condition. But you would have
to work pretty hard to create code that did not carry the dependencies
as require, not?
> Additionally, what about the following code?
> char *x = y ? z : z;
> Does that extend a dependency chain from z to x? If so, I can imagine a
> CPU breaking that in practice.
I am not seeing this. I would expect the compiler to optimize to
something like this:
char *x = z;
How does this avoid carrying the dependency? Or are you saying that
ARM loses the dependency via a store to memory and a later reload?
That would be a bit surprising...
> > > Humans will understand, and compiler writers won't care. They will
> > > either depend on hardware semantics anyway (and argue that your
> > > language is tight enough that they don't need to do anything special)
> > > or they will turn the consume into an acquire (on platforms that have
> > > too weak hardware).
> > Agreed. Plus Core Working Group will hammer out the exact wording,
> > should this approach meet their approval.
> For the avoidance of doubt, I'm completely behind any attempts to tackle
> this problem, but I anticipate an uphill struggle getting this text into
> the C standard. Is your intention to change the carries-a-dependency
> relation to encompass this change?
I completely agree that this won't be easy, but this is the task at hand.
And yes, the intent is to change carries-a-dependency, given that the
current wording isn't helping anything. ;-)