Re: [PATCH tip/core/locking 4/4] Documentation/memory-barriers.txt:Document ACCESS_ONCE()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:10:50PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:05:47AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 10:50:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > + (*) The compiler is within its rights to reload a variable, for example,
> > > > > +     in cases where high register pressure prevents the compiler from
> > > > > +     keeping all data of interest in registers.  The compiler might
> > > > > +     therefore optimize the variable tmp out of our previous example:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	while (tmp = a)
> > > > > +		do_something_with(tmp);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     This could result in the following code, which is perfectly safe in
> > > > > +     single-threaded code, but can be fatal in concurrent code:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	while (a)
> > > > > +		do_something_with(a);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     For example, the optimized version of this code could result in
> > > > > +     passing a zero to do_something_with() in the case where the variable
> > > > > +     a was modified by some other CPU between the "while" statement and
> > > > > +     the call to do_something_with().
> > > > 
> > > > Nit: I guess references to variable names such as 'a' should be quoted 
> > > > (same for 'tmp', 'b', etc):
> > > > 
> > > >         For example, the optimized version of this code could result in
> > > >         passing a zero to do_something_with() in the case where the variable
> > > >         'a' was modified by some other CPU between the "while" statement and
> > > >         the call to do_something_with().
> > > > 
> > > > which makes reading it less ambiguous and more fluid IMO. This 
> > > > observation applies to the whole document as 'a' is used in many 
> > > > places.
> > > 
> > > Good point, fixed.
> > 
> > Which reminds me -- the thing that makes me most nervous about 
> > prohibiting speculative stores is the bit about having to anticipate 
> > all compiler optimizations that might get rid of the needed 
> > conditionals.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> As long as current compiler versions behave I don't the potential of 
> future problems is a problem that can (or should) be solved via 
> documentation - there will always be a colorful tension between 
> specification and reality, both at the hardware, the code and the 
> compiler level ;-)

There certainly has been in the past.  ;-)

> It doesn't hurt to outline our expectations in any case, agreed?

Fair enough, I will leave it as is.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/