On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:44:25AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 04:02:09PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah, but I asked the different question. We must see CPU 1's stores by
> > > > definition, but what about CPU 0's stores (which could be seen by CPU
> > > > 1)?
> > > >
> > > > Let's take a "real life" example,
> > > >
> > > > A = B = X = 0;
> > > > P = Q = &A;
> > > >
> > > > CPU_0 CPU_1 CPU_2
> > > >
> > > > P = &B; *P = 1; if (X) {
> > > > wmb(); rmb();
> > > > X = 1; BUG_ON(*P != 1 && *Q != 1);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > So, is it possible that CPU_1 sees P == &B, but CPU_2 sees P == &A ?
> > >
> > > That can't be. CPU_2 sees X=1, that happened after (or same time at most
> > > -
> > > from a cache inv. POV) to *P=1, that must have happened after P=&B (in
> > > order for *P to assign B). So P=&B happened, from a pure time POV, before
> > > the rmb(), and the rmb() should guarantee that CPU_2 sees P=&B too.
> >
> > Actually, CPU designers have to go quite a ways out of their way to
> > prevent this BUG_ON from happening. One way that it would happen
> > naturally would be if the cache line containing P were owned by CPU 2,
> > and if CPUs 0 and 1 shared a store buffer that they both snooped. So,
> > here is what could happen given careless or sadistic CPU designers:
>
> Ohh, I misinterpreted that rmb(), sorry. Somehow I gave it for granted
> that it was a cross-CPU sync point (ala read_barrier_depends). If that's a
> local CPU load ordering only, things are different, clearly. But ...
>
> > o CPU 0 stores &B to P, but misses the cache, so puts the
> > result in the store buffer. This means that only CPUs 0 and 1
> > can see it.
> >
> > o CPU 1 fetches P, and sees &B, so stores a 1 to B. Again,
> > this value for P is visible only to CPUs 0 and 1.
> >
> > o CPU 1 executes a wmb(), which forces CPU 1's stores to happen
> > in order. But it does nothing about CPU 0's stores, nor about CPU
> > 1's loads, for that matter (and the only reason that POWER ends
> > up working the way you would like is because wmb() turns into
> > "sync" rather than the "eieio" instruction that would have been
> > used for smp_wmb() -- which is maybe what Oleg was thinking of,
> > but happened to abbreviate. If my analysis is buggy, Anton and
> > Paulus will no doubt correct me...)
>
> If a store buffer is shared between CPU_0 and CPU_1, it is very likely
> that a sync done on CPU_1 is going to sync even CPU_0 stores that are
> held in the buffer at the time of CPU_1's sync.
That would indeed be one approach that CPU designers could take to
avoid being careless or sadistic. ;-)
Another approach would be to make CPU 1 refrain from snooping CPU 0's
entries in the shared store queue.
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
