This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- From: Peter Sewell <Peter dot Sewell at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Paul McKenney <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, Alec Teal <a dot teal at warwick dot ac dot uk>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>, "linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "akpm at linux-foundation dot org" <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, "mingo at kernel dot org" <mingo at kernel dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:23:47 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CA+55aFx9CbgrfK4rBVYD75y2KoWiO90dSYsAW83O-tYVLK-gkg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CA+55aFypfiTFwundih8QEA6ZwVGk=g5L4sabsN0932eih5knOQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <1392486310 dot 18779 dot 6447 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <CA+55aFwTrt_6m1inNHQkk74i7uPkHNnacwHiBgioZSXieAs5Sw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1392666947 dot 18779 dot 6838 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <CA+55aFwUnRVk6q3VZeYjWfduoHcExW=Pht6jgp=4bBSaLHNPMA at mail dot gmail dot com> <530296CD dot 5050503 at warwick dot ac dot uk> <CA+55aFyi8QWge7QR0M+ABH-kEiwvoEyMhK6GWRvN1YNKJAFuSQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <1392737465 dot 18779 dot 7644 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <CA+55aFxn2KRXDQ91xRs=bO_6d_nA_PSQvoY1_=OxyJ86+KOO9Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140218171609 dot GP4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Reply-to: Peter dot Sewell at cl dot cam dot ac dot uk
On 18 February 2014 17:16, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 08:49:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 16:05 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >> And exactly because I know enough, I would *really* like atomics to be
>> >> well-defined, and have very clear - and *local* - rules about how they
>> >> can be combined and optimized.
>> >
>> > "Local"?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> So I think that one of the big advantages of atomics over volatile is
>> that they *can* be optimized, and as such I'm not at all against
>> trying to generate much better code than for volatile accesses.
>>
>> But at the same time, that can go too far. For example, one of the
>> things we'd want to use atomics for is page table accesses, where it
>> is very important that we don't generate multiple accesses to the
>> values, because parts of the values can be change *by*hardware* (ie
>> accessed and dirty bits).
>>
>> So imagine that you have some clever global optimizer that sees that
>> the program never ever actually sets the dirty bit at all in any
>> thread, and then uses that kind of non-local knowledge to make
>> optimization decisions. THAT WOULD BE BAD.
>
> Might as well list other reasons why value proofs via whole-program
> analysis are unreliable for the Linux kernel:
>
> 1. As Linus said, changes from hardware.
>
> 2. Assembly code that is not visible to the compiler.
> Inline asms will -normally- let the compiler know what
> memory they change, but some just use the "memory" tag.
> Worse yet, I suspect that most compilers don't look all
> that carefully at .S files.
>
> Any number of other programs contain assembly files.
>
> 3. Kernel modules that have not yet been written. Now, the
> compiler could refrain from trying to prove anything about
> an EXPORT_SYMBOL() or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() variable, but there
> is currently no way to communicate this information to the
> compiler other than marking the variable "volatile".
>
> Other programs have similar issues, e.g., via dlopen().
>
> 4. Some drivers allow user-mode code to mmap() some of their
> state. Any changes undertaken by the user-mode code would
> be invisible to the compiler.
>
> 5. JITed code produced based on BPF: https://lwn.net/Articles/437981/
>
> And probably other stuff as well.
interesting list. So are you saying that value-range-analysis and
such-like (I say glibly, without really knowing what "such-like"
refers to here) are fundamentally incompatible with
the kernel code, or can you think of some way to tell the compiler a
bound on the footprint of the "unseen" changes in each of those cases?
Peter
> Thanx, Paul
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/