Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181028230627.GA3420@andrea> <20181028231003.GA4021@andrea> <20181029012042.GR4170@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181029012042.GR4170@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 10:23:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3t54qYyj1r0vjXJzgb3wvJLt4ypb7=xesavcJwC30_kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFR] Store tearing
To:     Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 2:21 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:10:03AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Hopefully, with Paul's proper email address this time,
> >
> >   Andrea
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:06:27AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > memory-barriers.txt says:
> > >
> > >   [on "store tearing"]
> > >
> > >   "In fact, a recent bug (since fixed) caused GCC to incorrectly use
> > >    this optimization in a volatile store.".
> > >
> > > I was wondering if you could help me retrieve some reference/discussions
> > > about this?
>
> This was quite some time ago, but it involved a 32-bit volatile store
> of a constant such as 0x10001.  The machine in question had a narrow
> store-immediate instruction, so the compiler emitted  a pair of 16-bit
> store-immediate instructions.  This bug was fixed, though only after
> significant screaming and shouting.

A related issue I remember was on ARMv5 (an architecture without
unaligned access) where a function like )not sure if this specific
one triggers it, but something like it did)

struct my_registers {
     u32 a;
     u32 b;
     u32 c;
} __attribute__((packed));
#define __raw_writel(p, v) do { (volatile u32 __iomem *)(p) = (v); } while (0)
void my_write_a(struct my_registers __iomem *r, u32 val)
{
       __raw_writel(&r->a, val);
}

The above is undefined behavior because we cast from an unaligned
data type to a 32-bit aligned type, and gcc resolved this by turning the
intended 32-bit store into a set of 8 bit stores. We worked around this
by changing __raw_writel() into a inline assembly that always uses a
32-bit store.

      Arnd