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:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 11:36:09 -0400
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        paulmck@kernel.org, parri.andrea@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
        luc.maranget@inria.fr, akiyks@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()
Message-ID: <20210604153609.GF1676809@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <YLn8dzbNwvqrqqp5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210604104359.GE2318@willie-the-truck>
 <YLoPJDzlTsvpjFWt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210604134422.GA2793@willie-the-truck>
 <YLoxAOua/qsZXNmY@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210604151356.GC2793@willie-the-truck>
 <YLpFHE5Cr45rWTUV@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YLpFHE5Cr45rWTUV@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 05:22:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 04:13:57PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> 
> > In fact, maybe it's actually necessary to bundle the load and branch
> > together. I looked at some of the examples of compilers breaking control
> > dependencies from memory-barriers.txt and the "boolean short-circuit"
> > example seems to defeat volatile_if:
> > 
> > void foo(int *x, int *y)
> > {
> >         volatile_if (READ_ONCE(*x) || 1 > 0)
> >                 WRITE_ONCE(*y, 42);
> > }  
> 
> Yeah, I'm not too bothered about this. Broken is broken.
> 
> If this were a compiler feature, the above would be a compile error. But
> alas, we're not there yet :/ and the best we get to say at this point
> is: don't do that then.

This is an example of a "syntactic" dependency versus a "semantic" 
dependency.  We shouldn't expect syntactic control dependencies to be 
preserved.

As a rule, people don't write non-semantic dependencies on purpose.  But 
they can occur in some situations, thanks to definitions the programmer 
isn't aware of.  One example would be:

(In some obscure header file): #define NUM_FOO 1

(Then in real code): if (READ_ONCE(*x) % NUM_FOO) ...

Alan