Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-06-04 14:13:15
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 01:44:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:12:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:quoted
+/** + * volatile_if() - Provide a control-dependency + * + * volatile_if(READ_ONCE(A)) + * WRITE_ONCE(B, 1); + * + * will ensure that the STORE to B happens after the LOAD of A. Normally a + * control dependency relies on a conditional branch having a data dependency + * on the LOAD and an architecture's inability to speculate STOREs. IOW, this + * provides a LOAD->STORE order. + * + * Due to optimizing compilers extra care is needed; as per the example above + * the LOAD must be 'volatile' qualified in order to ensure the compiler + * actually emits the load, such that the data-dependency to the conditional + * branch can be formed. + * + * Secondly, the compiler must be prohibited from lifting anything out of the + * selection statement, as this would obviously also break the ordering. + * + * Thirdly, and this is the tricky bit, architectures that allow the + * LOAD->STORE reorder must ensure the compiler actually emits the conditional + * branch instruction, this isn't possible in generic. + * + * See the volatile_cond() wrapper. + */ +#define volatile_if(cond) if (volatile_cond(cond))On naming (sorry Paul for forgetting that in the initial mail); while I think using the volatile qualifier for the language feature (can we haz plz, kthxbai) makes perfect sense, Paul felt that we might use a 'better' name for the kernel use, ctrl_dep_if() was proposed. Let us pain bike sheds :-)
I have felt that pain many times... ;-) Here is what I see thus far from these two threads: 1. volatile_if() as above. Nice ease of use, but might be suboptimal on architectures where a branch is slower than an acquire load. 2. #1, but with my preferred name of ctrl_dep_if() instead of volatile_if(). 3. READ_ONCE_CTRL() like back in the old days. This has the advantage of giving the compiler more information, but has problems with relaxed atomic RMW operations. 4. A full (fool?) solution based on #3 would also include _ctrl suffixed atomic RMW operations. 5. Your bikeshed color here! Thanx, Paul