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, 19 Apr 2021 10:26:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@google.com>, ojeda@kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] [RFC] Rust support
Message-ID: <YH0+0VQ1XC8+rv20@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210414184604.23473-1-ojeda@kernel.org>
 <YHiMyE4E1ViDcVPi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YHj02M3jMSweoP4l@google.com>
 <YHk4DZE1ZWTiBB1f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <aa6e44ab-e223-73aa-279e-8103732460ac@redhat.com>
 <YH0yCTgL0raKrmYg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <7287eac3-f492-bab1-9ea8-b89ceceed560@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7287eac3-f492-bab1-9ea8-b89ceceed560@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 09:53:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/04/21 09:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 04:51:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 16/04/21 09:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > Well, the obvious example would be seqlocks. C11 can't do them
> > > 
> > > Sure it can.  C11 requires annotating with (the equivalent of) READ_ONCE all
> > > reads of seqlock-protected fields, but the memory model supports seqlocks
> > > just fine.
> > 
> > How does that help?
> > 
> > IIRC there's two problems, one on each side the lock. On the write side
> > we have:
> > 
> > 	seq++;
> > 	smp_wmb();
> > 	X = r;
> > 	Y = r;
> > 	smp_wmb();
> > 	seq++;
> > 
> > Which C11 simply cannot do right because it does't have wmb.
> 
> It has atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release), and
> atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_acquire) on the read side.

https://godbolt.org/z/85xoPxeE5

void writer(void)
{
    atomic_store_explicit(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_relaxed);
    atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_acquire);

    X = 1;
    Y = 2;

    atomic_store_explicit(&seq, seq+1, memory_order_release);
}

gives:

writer:
        adrp    x1, .LANCHOR0
        add     x0, x1, :lo12:.LANCHOR0
        ldr     w2, [x1, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
        add     w2, w2, 1
        str     w2, [x0]
        dmb     ishld
        ldr     w1, [x1, #:lo12:.LANCHOR0]
        mov     w3, 1
        mov     w2, 2
        stp     w3, w2, [x0, 4]
        add     w1, w1, w3
        stlr    w1, [x0]
        ret

Which, afaict, is completely buggered. What it seems to be doing is
turning the seq load into a load-acquire, but what we really need is to
make sure the seq store (increment) is ordered before the other stores.