Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:23:51 -0400
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr,
        akiyks@gmail.com, dlustig@nvidia.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro
Message-ID: <20201005142351.GB376584@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <20201001045116.GA5014@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20201001161529.GA251468@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20201001213048.GF29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20201003132212.GB318272@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20201004233146.GP29330@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20201005023846.GA359428@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <20201005082002.GA23216@willie-the-truck>
 <20201005091247.GA23575@willie-the-truck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201005091247.GA23575@willie-the-truck>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:12:48AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:20:03AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 10:38:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Considering the bug in herd7 pointed out by Akira, we should rewrite P1 as:
> > > 
> > > P1(int *x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > 	int r2;
> > > 
> > > 	r = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > 
> > (r2?)
> > 
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, r2);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > Other than that, this is fine.
> > 
> > But yes, module the typo, I agree that this rewrite is much better than the
> > proposal above. The definition of control dependencies on arm64 (per the Arm
> > ARM [1]) isn't entirely clear that it provides order if the WRITE is
> > executed on both paths of the branch, and I believe there are ongoing
> > efforts to try to tighten that up. I'd rather keep _that_ topic separate
> > from the "bug in herd" topic to avoid extra confusion.
> 
> Ah, now I see that you're changing P1 here, not P0. So I'm now nervous
> about claiming that this is a bug in herd without input from Jade or Luc,
> as it does unfortunately tie into the definition of control dependencies
> and it could be a deliberate choice.

I think you misunderstood.  The bug in herd7 affects the way it handles 
P1, not P0.  With

	r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	WRITE_ONCE(*x, r2);

herd7 generates a data dependency from the read to the write.  With

	WRITE_ONCE(*x, READ_ONCE(*y));

it doesn't generate any dependency, even though the code does exactly 
the same thing as far as the memory model is concerned.  That's the bug 
I was referring to.

The failure to recognize the dependency in P0 should be considered a 
combined limitation of the memory model and herd7.  It's not a simple 
mistake that can be fixed by a small rewrite of herd7; rather it's a 
deliberate choice we made based on herd7's inherent design.  We 
explicitly said that control dependencies extend only to the code in the 
branches of an "if" statement; anything beyond the end of the statement 
is not considered to be dependent.

Alan