Can you expand on that please. All previous discussion of IRIW I have seen indicated that the property, while a consequence of existing JMM rules, had no practical use.
Thanks, David -----Original Message----- From: Roman Elizarov [mailto:eliza...@devexperts.com] Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2014 6:49 PM To: dhol...@ieee.org; Hans Boehm Cc: concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev Subject: RE: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics There is no conceivable way to kill IRIW consistency requirement while retaining ability to prove correctness of large software systems. If IRIW of volatile variables are not consistent, then volatile reads and writes are not linearizable, which breaks linearizabiliy of all higher-level primitives build on top of them and makes formal reasoning about behavior of concurrent systems practically impossible. There are many fields where this is not acceptable. /Roman From: concurrency-interest-boun...@cs.oswego.edu [mailto:concurrency-interest-boun...@cs.oswego.edu] On Behalf Of David Holmes Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 5:11 AM To: Hans Boehm Cc: concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804: JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics Hi Hans, Given IRIW is a thorn in everyone's side and has no known useful benefit, and can hopefully be killed off in the future, lets not get bogged down in IRIW. But none of what you say below relates to multi-copy-atomicity. Cheers, David -----Original Message----- From: hjkhbo...@gmail.com [mailto:hjkhbo...@gmail.com]On Behalf Of Hans Boehm Sent: Wednesday, 26 November 2014 12:04 PM To: dhol...@ieee.org Cc: Stephan Diestelhorst; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu; core-libs-dev Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804: JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics To be concrete here, on Power, loads can normally be ordered by an address dependency or light-weight fence (lwsync). However, neither is enough to prevent the questionable outcome for IRIW, since it doesn't ensure that the stores in T1 and T2 will be made visible to other threads in a consistent order. That outcome can be prevented by using heavyweight fences (sync) instructions between the loads instead. Peter Sewell's group concluded that to enforce correct volatile behavior on Power, you essentially need a a heavyweight fence between every pair of volatile operations on Power. That cannot be understood based on simple ordering constraints. As Stephan pointed out, there are similar issues on ARM, but they're less commonly encountered in a Java implementation. If you're lucky, you can get to the right implementation recipe by looking at only reordering, I think. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, David Holmes <davidchol...@aapt.net.au> wrote: Stephan Diestelhorst writes: > > David Holmes wrote: > > Stephan Diestelhorst writes: > > > Am Dienstag, 25. November 2014, 11:15:36 schrieb Hans Boehm: > > > > I'm no hardware architect, but fundamentally it seems to me that > > > > > > > > load x > > > > acquire_fence > > > > > > > > imposes a much more stringent constraint than > > > > > > > > load_acquire x > > > > > > > > Consider the case in which the load from x is an L1 hit, but a > > > > preceding load (from say y) is a long-latency miss. If we enforce > > > > ordering by just waiting for completion of prior operation, the > > > > former has to wait for the load from y to complete; while the > > > > latter doesn't. I find it hard to believe that this doesn't leave > > > > an appreciable amount of performance on the table, at least for > > > > some interesting microarchitectures. > > > > > > I agree, Hans, that this is a reasonable assumption. Load_acquire x > > > does allow roach motel, whereas the acquire fence does not. > > > > > > > In addition, for better or worse, fencing requirements on at least > > > > Power are actually driven as much by store atomicity issues, as by > > > > the ordering issues discussed in the cookbook. This was not > > > > understood in 2005, and unfortunately doesn't seem to be > amenable to > > > > the kind of straightforward explanation as in Doug's cookbook. > > > > > > Coming from a strongly ordered architecture to a weakly ordered one > > > myself, I also needed some mental adjustment about store (multi-copy) > > > atomicity. I can imagine others will be unaware of this difference, > > > too, even in 2014. > > > > Sorry I'm missing the connection between fences and multi-copy > atomicity. > > One example is the classic IRIW. With non-multi copy atomic stores, but > ordered (say through a dependency) loads in the following example: > > Memory: foo = bar = 0 > _T1_ _T2_ _T3_ _T4_ > st (foo),1 st (bar),1 ld r1, (bar) ld r3,(foo) > <addr dep / local "fence" here> <addr dep> > ld r2, (foo) ld r4, (bar) > > You may observe r1 = 1, r2 = 0, r3 = 1, r4 = 0 on non-multi-copy atomic > machines. On TSO boxes, this is not possible. That means that the > memory fence that will prevent such a behaviour (DMB on ARM) needs to > carry some additional oomph in ensuring multi-copy atomicity, or rather > prevent you from seeing it (which is the same thing). I take it as given that any code for which you may have ordering constraints, must first have basic atomicity properties for loads and stores. I would not expect any kind of fence to add multi-copy-atomicity where there was none. David > Stephan > > _______________________________________________ > Concurrency-interest mailing list > concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu > http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest _______________________________________________ Concurrency-interest mailing list concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
