> On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Laszlo,
>
> Thanks for the details from and ANSI C spec.
>
> For this compiler issue, are there more details on the
> assembly code generated by the GCC 5.4 compiler in the
> failing mode?
>
> I also see Liming's observation that the internal
> implementation of the SynchronizationLib adds volatile
> in some internal worker functions. Other implementation
> artifacts include the use of a read/write memory barrier
> to prevent the optimizing compiler from optimizing
> across a boundary. These read/write barriers are used
> in the spin lock functions, but not the Interlocked*()
> functions.
>
> I want to make sure we have studied the code generation
> to see if the issue is related to volatile or a read/write
> memory barrier. It could be adding volatile forced the
> compiler to internally add read/write barrier.
>
Mike,
I don't think volatile variables imply memory barriers as they are different
constraints placed on the compiler.
The volatile variable forces the memory operations to alway happen to memory.
Thus the compiler can not optimize out a read or write. If two values are
written in a row (the 1st write could be optimized away). The compiler also can
not cache the variable in a register, or imply it is a constant (last value
written etc.).
The memory barrier (also called fence) just forces the compiler to complete
load store operations before the barrier before it can perform operations after
the barrier. Lots of optimization and reordering can happen between the
barriers. You are still running the optimizer so code can get optimized away
and reordered, only the scope of how much code can be optimized was changed.
Thus the volatile is a constraint placed on an individual variable, and the
barrier is a constraint places on how big a chunk of code can be optimized. I
guess if you placed a barrier between every access to a variable you could
simulate volatile behavior, but with a lot more side effects (less optimization
than just using volatile).
Here is a simple example:
a) Nothing() writes 3 to 0x12345678 and returns constant 3
b) Barrier() writes 2 to 0x12345678, then writes 3 and returns constant 3
c) Volatile() writes 1 to 0x12345678, writes 2, writes 3, then reads 3 from
memory to return it.
d) AllBarrier() writes 1 to 0x12345678, writes 2, writes 3, then reads 3 from
memory to return it.
$ cat barriers.c
#define _ReadWriteBarrier() do { __asm__ __volatile__ ("": : : "memory"); }
while(0)
int Nothing ()
{
int *ptr = (int *)0x12345678;
*ptr = 1;
*ptr = 2;
*ptr = 3;
return *ptr;
}
int Barrier ()
{
int *ptr = (int *)0x12345678;
*ptr = 1;
*ptr = 2;
_ReadWriteBarrier();
*ptr = 3;
return *ptr;
}
int Volatile ()
{
volatile int *ptr = (int *)0x12345678;
*ptr = 1;
*ptr = 2;
*ptr = 3;
return *ptr;
}
int AllBarrier ()
{
int *ptr = (int *)0x12345678;
*ptr = 1;
_ReadWriteBarrier();
*ptr = 2;
_ReadWriteBarrier();
*ptr = 3;
_ReadWriteBarrier();
return *ptr;
}
$ clang -Os -S barriers.c
$ cat barriers.S
.globl _Nothing
_Nothing: ## @Nothing
pushq %rbp
movq %rsp, %rbp
movl $3, 305419896
movl $3, %eax
popq %rbp
retq
.globl _Barrier
_Barrier: ## @Barrier
pushq %rbp
movq %rsp, %rbp
movl $2, 305419896
## InlineAsm Start
## InlineAsm End
movl $3, 305419896
movl $3, %eax
popq %rbp
retq
.globl _Volatile
_Volatile: ## @Volatile
pushq %rbp
movq %rsp, %rbp
movl $1, 305419896
movl $2, 305419896
movl $3, 305419896
movl 305419896, %eax
popq %rbp
retq
_AllBarrier: ## @AllBarrier
pushq %rbp
movq %rsp, %rbp
movl $1, 305419896
## InlineAsm Start
## InlineAsm End
movl $2, 305419896
## InlineAsm Start
## InlineAsm End
movl $3, 305419896
## InlineAsm Start
## InlineAsm End
movl 305419896, %eax
popq %rbp
retq
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
PS These are just X86 examples on a architecture that required synchronizing
instructions things are a little more complex and there could be more
difference between volatile and barriers. But this topic was complex enough ....
> Also, given the implementation I see in the SynchronizationLib
> I am not sure the cast to (UINT32 *) is required in the
> proposed patch. Do we get compiler warnings/errors if those
> casts are not included?
>
> The second topic is what the SynchronizationLib API interfaces
> should have been from the beginning. In retrospect, I think
> they should have been defined with volatile pointers. The spin
> lock APIs do use volatile pointers, but that is embedded in the
> typedef for SPIN_LOCK, so it is not as obvious.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:10 AM
>> To: Fan, Jeff <jeff....@intel.com>; edk2-de...@ml01.01.org
>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen....@intel.com>;
>> Tian,
>> Feng <feng.t...@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Add volatile for mNumberToFinish
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> On 11/15/16 15:08, Jeff Fan wrote:
>>> v2:
>>> Add patch #1 per Laszlo's comments
>>> at https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2016-November/004697.html
>>>
>>> About the comments updated SynchronizationLib to add volatile for
>>> input parameter, I will send in another serial patches.
>>>
>>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen....@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Feng Tian <feng.t...@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>
>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Fan <jeff....@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Jeff Fan (2):
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: Add volatile for parameter NumberToFinish
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm: Add volatile for mNumberToFinish
>>>
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/CpuS3.c | 4 ++--
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/Ia32/SmmFuncsArch.c | 4 ++--
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm.h | 2 +-
>>> UefiCpuPkg/PiSmmCpuDxeSmm/X64/SmmFuncsArch.c | 2 +-
>>> 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> if you want to keep GCC5.4 from optimizing away the access, the
>> synchronization object itself, and all pointers to it must remain
>> volatile. Wherever you cast away the volatile qualifier, for example in
>> a function call, GCC can break code on the next level, even if you don't
>> actually access the object through that pointer (i.e., if you cast the
>> pointer back to volatile just in time for the access).
>>
>> So, the safe way to go about this is to change function prototypes from
>> callee towards callers -- first change the callee (because both volatile
>> and non-volatile can be accepted as volatile), then change the caller
>> (make sure what you pass in is volatile, and propagate it outwards).
>>
>> It is also okay to convert the original volatile pointer to UINTN, and
>> to pass it to assembly code like that, or to convert it back to a
>> volatile pointer from UINTN before use.
>>
>> From the C99 standard:
>>
>> 6.3 Conversions
>> 6.3.2.3 Pointers
>>
>> 2 For any qualifier q, a pointer to a non-q-qualified type may be
>> converted to a pointer to the q-qualified version of the type; the
>> values stored in the original and converted pointers shall compare
>> equal.
>>
>> 5 An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as
>> previously specified, the result is implementation-defined, might
>> not be correctly aligned, might not point to an entity of the
>> referenced type, and might be a trap representation.
>>
>> 6 Any pointer type may be converted to an integer type. Except as
>> previously specified, the result is implementation-defined. If the
>> result cannot be represented in the integer type, the behavior is
>> undefined. The result need not be in the range of values of any
>> integer type.
>>
>> 6.7.3 Type qualifiers, paragraph 5:
>>
>> If an attempt is made to modify an object defined with a
>> const-qualified type through use of an lvalue with
>> non-const-qualified type, the behavior is undefined. If an attempt
>> is made to refer to an object defined with a volatile-qualified
>> type through use of an lvalue with non-volatile-qualified type, the
>> behavior is undefined.
>>
>> In summary:
>>
>> - casting away "volatile" even just temporarily (without actual
>> accesses) may give gcc license to break the code (6.3.2.3 p2)
>>
>> - accessing without volatile is known to break the code (6.7.3 p5)
>>
>> - you can always cast from non-volatile to volatile (6.3.2.3 p2),
>> but not the other way around!
>>
>> - you can cast from (volatile VOID *) to UINTN and back as much as
>> you want (6.3.2.3 p5 p6), because our execution environment makes
>> that safe ("implementation-defined")
>>
>> We might want to play loose with 6.3.2.3 p2 -- that is, cast away
>> volatile from the pointer only temporarily, and cast it back just before
>> accessing the object through the pointer --, but that could be unsafe in
>> the long term. The *really* safe method is to cast it to UINTN, and then
>> back the same way.
>>
>> Yes, this would affect functions like SwitchStack() too -- the Context1
>> and Context2 parameters would have to change their types to UINTN.
>>
>> I think what we should discuss at this point is whether we'd like to
>> care about 6.3.2.3 p2; that is, whether we consider casting away
>> volatile temporarily.
>>
>> The direction I've been experiencing with GCC is that its optimization
>> methods are becoming more aggressive. For some optimizations, there are
>> flags that disable them; I'm not sure they provide a specific flag for
>> preventing GCC from exploiting violations of 6.3.2.3 p2.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
