This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 10:09:25PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 18:59 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +0000, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
> > > > compiler intrinsics inside the kernel?  The compiler _ought_ to be able to do
> > > > these.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It sounds interesting to me, if we can make it work properly and 
> > > reliably. + for others in the GCC community to chip in.
> > 
> > Given my (albeit limited) experience playing with the C11 spec and GCC, I
> > really think this is a bad idea for the kernel.
> I'm not going to comment on what's best for the kernel (simply because I
> don't work on it), but I disagree with several of your statements.
> > It seems that nobody really
> > agrees on exactly how the C11 atomics map to real architectural
> > instructions on anything but the trivial architectures.
> There's certainly different ways to implement the memory model and those
> have to be specified elsewhere, but I don't see how this differs much
> from other things specified in the ABI(s) for each architecture.
> > For example, should
> > the following code fire the assert?
> I don't see how your example (which is about what the language requires
> or not) relates to the statement about the mapping above?
> > 
> > extern atomic<int> foo, bar, baz;
> > 
> > void thread1(void)
> > {
> >, memory_order_relaxed);
> > 	bar.fetch_add(1, memory_order_seq_cst);
> >, memory_order_relaxed);
> > }
> > 
> > void thread2(void)
> > {
> > 	while (baz.load(memory_order_seq_cst) != 42) {
> > 		/* do nothing */
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	assert(foo.load(memory_order_seq_cst) == 42);
> > }
> > 
> It's a good example.  My first gut feeling was that the assertion should
> never fire, but that was wrong because (as I seem to usually forget) the
> seq-cst total order is just a constraint but doesn't itself contribute
> to synchronizes-with -- but this is different for seq-cst fences.

>From what I can see, Will's point is that mapping the Linux kernel's
atomic_add_return() primitive into fetch_add() does not work because
atomic_add_return()'s ordering properties require that the assert()
never fire.

Augmenting the fetch_add() with a seq_cst fence would work on many
architectures, but not for all similar examples.  The reason is that
the C11 seq_cst fence is deliberately weak compared to ARM's dmb or
Power's sync.  To your point, I believe that it would make the above
example work, but there are some IRIW-like examples that would fail
according to the standard (though a number of specific implementations
would in fact work correctly).

> > To answer that question, you need to go and look at the definitions of
> > synchronises-with, happens-before, dependency_ordered_before and a whole
> > pile of vaguely written waffle to realise that you don't know.
> Are you familiar with the formalization of the C11/C++11 model by Batty
> et al.?
> They also have a nice tool that can run condensed examples and show you
> all allowed (and forbidden) executions (it runs in the browser, so is
> slow for larger examples), including nice annotated graphs for those:
> It requires somewhat special syntax, but the following, which should be
> equivalent to your example above, runs just fine:
> int main() {
>   atomic_int foo = 0; 
>   atomic_int bar = 0; 
>   atomic_int baz = 0; 
>   {{{ {
>, memory_order_relaxed);
>, memory_order_seq_cst);
>, memory_order_relaxed);
>       }
>   ||| {
>         r1=baz.load(memory_order_seq_cst).readsvalue(42);
>         r2=foo.load(memory_order_seq_cst).readsvalue(0);
>       }
>   }}};
>   return 0; }
> That yields 3 consistent executions for me, and likewise if the last
> readsvalue() is using 42 as argument.
> If you add a "fence(memory_order_seq_cst);" after the store to foo, the
> program can't observe != 42 for foo anymore, because the seq-cst fence
> is adding a synchronizes-with edge via the baz reads-from.
> I think this is a really neat tool, and very helpful to answer such
> questions as in your example.

Hmmm...  The tool doesn't seem to like fetch_add().  But let's assume that
your substitution of store() for fetch_add() is correct.  Then this shows
that we cannot substitute fetch_add() for atomic_add_return().

Adding atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_seq_cst) after the
gives me "192 executions; no consistent", so perhaps there is hope for
augmenting the fetch_add() with a fence.  Except, as noted above, for
any number of IRIW-like examples such as the following:

int main() {
  atomic_int x = 0; atomic_int y = 0;
  {{{, memory_order_release);
  |||, memory_order_release);
  ||| { r1=x.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(1);
        r2=y.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(0); }
  ||| { r3=y.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(1);
        r4=x.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(0); }
  return 0; }

Adding a seq_cst store to a new variable z between each pair of reads
seems to choke cppmem:

int main() {
  atomic_int x = 0; atomic_int y = 0; atomic_int z = 0
  {{{, memory_order_release);
  |||, memory_order_release);
  ||| { r1=x.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(1);, memory_order_seq_cst);
        r2=y.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(0); }
  ||| { r3=y.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(1);, memory_order_seq_cst);
        r4=x.load(memory_order_relaxed).readsvalue(0); }
  return 0; }

Ah, it did eventually finish with "576 executions; 6 consistent, all
race free".  So this is an example where C11 has a hard time modeling
the Linux kernel's atomic_add_return().  Therefore, use of C11 atomics
to implement Linux kernel atomic operations requires knowledge of the
underlying architecture and the compiler's implementation, as was noted
earlier in this thread.

> > Certainly,
> > the code that arm64 GCC currently spits out would allow the assertion to fire
> > on some microarchitectures.
> > 
> > There are also so many ways to blow your head off it's untrue. For example,
> > cmpxchg takes a separate memory model parameter for failure and success, but
> > then there are restrictions on the sets you can use for each.
> That's in there for the architectures without a single-instruction
> CAS/cmpxchg, I believe.

Yep.  The Linux kernel currently requires the rough equivalent of
memory_order_seq_cst for both paths, but there is some chance that the
failure-path requirement might be weakened.

> > It's not hard
> > to find well-known memory-ordering experts shouting "Just use
> > memory_model_seq_cst for everything, it's too hard otherwise".
> Everyone I've heard saying this meant this as advice to people new to
> synchronization or just dealing infrequently with it.  The advice is the
> simple and safe fallback, and I don't think it's meant as an
> acknowledgment that the model itself would be too hard.  If the
> language's memory model is supposed to represent weak HW memory models
> to at least some extent, there's only so much you can do in terms of
> keeping it simple.  If all architectures had x86-like models, the
> language's model would certainly be simpler... :)

That is said a lot, but there was a recent Linux-kernel example that
turned out to be quite hard to prove for x86.  ;-)

> > Then there's
> > the fun of load-consume vs load-acquire (arm64 GCC completely ignores consume
> > atm and optimises all of the data dependencies away)
> AFAIK consume memory order was added to model Power/ARM-specific
> behavior.  I agree that the way the standard specifies how dependencies
> are to be preserved is kind of vague (as far as I understand it).  See
> GCC PR 59448.

This one?

That does indeed look to match what Will was calling out as a problem.

> > as well as the definition
> > of "data races", which seem to be used as an excuse to miscompile a program
> > at the earliest opportunity.
> No.  The purpose of this is to *not disallow* every optimization on
> non-synchronizing code.  Due to the assumption of data-race-free
> programs, the compiler can assume a sequential code sequence when no
> atomics are involved (and thus, keep applying optimizations for
> sequential code).
> Or is there something particular that you dislike about the
> specification of data races?

Cut Will a break, Torvald!  ;-)

> > Trying to introduce system concepts (writes to devices, interrupts,
> > non-coherent agents) into this mess is going to be an uphill battle IMHO.
> That might very well be true.
> OTOH, if you whould need to model this uniformly across different
> architectures (ie, so that there is a intra-kernel-portable abstraction
> for those system concepts), you might as well try doing this by
> extending the C11/C++11 model.  Maybe that will not be successful or not
> really a good fit, though, but at least then it's clear why that's the
> case.

I would guess that Linux-kernel use of C11 atomics will be selected or not
on an architecture-specific for the foreseeable future.

> > I'd
> > just rather stick to the semantics we have and the asm volatile barriers.
> > 
> > That's not to say I don't there's no room for improvement in what we have
> > in the kernel. Certainly, I'd welcome allowing more relaxed operations on
> > architectures that support them, but it needs to be something that at least
> > the different architecture maintainers can understand how to implement
> > efficiently behind an uncomplicated interface. I don't think that interface is
> > C11.
> IMHO, one thing worth considering is that for C/C++, the C11/C++11 is
> the only memory model that has widespread support.  So, even though it's
> a fairly weak memory model (unless you go for the "only seq-cst"
> beginners advice) and thus comes with a higher complexity, this model is
> what likely most people will be familiar with over time.  Deviating from
> the "standard" model can have valid reasons, but it also has a cost in
> that new contributors are more likely to be familiar with the "standard"
> model.
> Note that I won't claim that the C11/C++11 model is perfect -- there are
> a few rough edges there (e.g., the forward progress guarantees are (or
> used to be) a little coarse for my taste), and consume vs. dependencies
> worries me as well.  But, IMHO, overall it's the best C/C++ language
> model we have.

I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that in the near term,
any memory-model migration of the 15M+ LoC Linux-kernel code base
will be incremental in nature.  Especially if the C/C++ committee
insists on strengthening memory_order_relaxed.  :-/

							Thanx, Paul

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]