[WIP 0/3] Memory model and atomic API in Rust

[Philipp Stanner]

On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 17:36 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 at 17:21, Kent Overstreet
> <kent.overstreet at linux.dev> wrote:
> > 
> > Besides that there's cross arch support to think about - it's hard
> > to
> > imagine us ever ditching our own atomics.
> 
> > [... SNIP ...]
> > 
> > I was thinking about something more incremental - just an optional
> > mode
> > where our atomics were C atomics underneath. It'd probably give the
> > compiler people a much more effective way to test their stuff than
> > anything they have now.
> 
> I suspect it might be painful, and some compiler people would throw
> their hands up in horror, because the C++ atomics model is based
> fairly solidly on atomic types, and the kernel memory model is much
> more fluid.
> 
> Boqun already mentioned the "mixing access sizes", which is actually
> quite fundamental in the kernel, where we play lots of games with
> that
> (typically around locking, where you find patterns line unlock
> writing
> a zero to a single byte, even though the whole lock data structure is
> a word). And sometimes the access size games are very explicit (eg
> lib/lockref.c).
> 
> But it actually goes deeper than that. While we do have "atomic_t"
> etc
> for arithmetic atomics, and that probably would map fairly well to
> C++
> atomics, in other cases we simply base our atomics not on _types_,
> but
> on code.
> 
> IOW, we do things like "cmpxchg()", and the target of that atomic
> access is just a regular data structure field.
> 
> It's kind of like our "volatile" usage. If you read the C (and C++)
> standards, you'll find that you should use "volatile" on data types.
> That's almost *never* what the kernel does. The kernel uses
> "volatile"
> in _code_ (ie READ_ONCE() etc), and uses it by casting etc.
> 
> Compiler people don't tend to really like those kinds of things.

Just for my understanding: Why don't they like it?

I guess since compiler people have to support volatile pointers
anyways, temporarily casting something to such a volatile pointer
shouldn't be a problem either – so they don't dislike it because it's
more difficult to implement, but because it's more difficult to verify
for correctness?


P.

> 
>             Linus
>