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;
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 17:58:13 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     huangpei@loongson.cn
Cc:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        "stern@rowland.harvard.edu" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        "akiyks@gmail.com" <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        "andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com" 
        <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        "boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "dlustig@nvidia.com" <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        "dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk" <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget@inria.fr" <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        "npiggin@gmail.com" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        "paulmck@linux.ibm.com" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        "will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mips/atomic: Fix loongson_llsc_mb() wreckage
Message-ID: <20190514155813.GG2677@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190424123656.484227701@infradead.org>
 <20190424124421.636767843@infradead.org>
 <20190424211759.52xraajqwudc2fza@pburton-laptop>
 <2b2b07cc.bf42.16a52dc4e4d.Coremail.huangpei@loongson.cn>
 <20190425073348.GV11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190425091258.GC14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190425091258.GC14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


I think this thread got 'lost'

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:12:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Let me explain the bug more specific:
> > > 
> > > the bug ONLY matters in following situation:
> > > 
> > > #. more than one cpu (assume cpu A and B) doing ll/sc on same shared
> > > var V
> > > 
> > > #. speculative memory access from A cause A erroneously succeed sc
> > > operation, since the erroneously successful sc operation violate the
> > > coherence protocol. (here coherence protocol means the rules that CPU
> > > follow to implement ll/sc right)
> > > 
> > > #. B succeed sc operation too, but this sc operation is right both
> > > logically and follow the coherence protocol, and makes A's sc wrong
> > > logically since only ONE sc operation can succeed.
> 
> > > In one word， the bug only affect local cpu‘s ll/sc operation, and
> > > affect MP system.
> 
> > > PS:
> > > 
> > > If local_t is only ll/sc manipulated by current CPU， then no need fix it.
> > 
> > It _should_ be CPU local, but this was not at all clear from reading the
> > original changelog nor the comment with loongson_llsc_mb().
> 
> However, if it is a coherence issue, the thing is at the cacheline
> level, and there is nothing that says the line isn't shared, just the
> one variable isn't.
> 
> Ideally there should be minimal false sharing, but....

So if two variables share a line, and one is local while the other is
shared atomic, can contention on the line, but not the variable, cause
issues for the local variable?

If not; why not? Because so far the issue is line granular due to the
coherence aspect.