Writes, smp_wmb(), and transitivity?

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:53:20AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:35:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:58:32PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 09:58:25AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Some architectures provide local transitivity for a chain of threads doing
> > > > writes separated by smp_wmb(), as exemplified by the litmus tests below.
> > > > The pattern is that each thread writes to a its own variable, does an
> > > > smp_wmb(), then writes a different value to the next thread's variable.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know of a use of this, but if everyone supports it, it might
> > > > be good to mandate it.  Status quo is that smp_wmb() is non-transitive,
> > > > so it currently isn't supported.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyone know of any architectures that do -not- support this?
> > > > 
> > > > Assuming all architectures -do- support this, any arguments -against-
> > > > officially supporting it in Linux?
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > Two threads:
> > > > 
> > > > 	int a, b;
> > > > 
> > > > 	void thread0(void)
> > > > 	{
> > > > 		WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
> > > > 		smp_wmb();
> > > > 		WRITE_ONCE(b, 2);
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > 	void thread1(void)
> > > > 	{
> > > > 		WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
> > > > 		smp_wmb();
> > > > 		WRITE_ONCE(a, 2);
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > 	/* After all threads have completed and the dust has settled... */
> > > > 
> > > > 	BUG_ON(a == 1 && b == 1);
> > > 
> > > My understanding is that this test, and the generalisation to n threads,
> > > is forbidden on ARM. However, the transitivity of DMB ST (used to
> > > construct smp_wmb()) has been the subject of long debates, because we
> > > allow the following test:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > P0:
> > > Wx = 1
> > > 
> > > P1:
> > > Rx == 1
> > > DMB ST
> > > Wy = 1
> > > 
> > > P2:
> > > Ry == 1
> > > <addr dep>
> > > Rx == 0
> > > 
> > > 
> > > so I'd be uneasy about saying "it's all transitive".
> > 
> > Agreed!  For one thing, doesn't DMB ST need writes on both sides?
> 
> Yes, but it's a common trap that people fall into where they think the
> above is forbidden because the DMB ST in P1 should order P0's write
> before its own write of y.

True enough.

> > But that is one reason that I am only semi-enthusiastic about this.
> > The potentially locally transitive case is -very- restrictive, applying
> > only to situations where -all- accesses are writes.
> 
> I think that we will confuse people more by trying to describe the
> restricted case where we provide order than if we blanket say that its
> not transitive. I know Linus prefers to be as strong as possible, but
> this doesn't look like a realistic programming paradigm and having a
> straightforward rule that "rmb and wmb are not transitive" is much
> easier for people to deal with in my opinion.

That is a good explanation of why I am only semi-enthusiastic about
this.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul