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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <YLpJ5K6O52o1cAVT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20210604155154.GG1676809@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <YLpSEM7sxSmsuc5t@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20210604182708.GB1688170@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <CAHk-=wiuLpmOGJyB385UyQioWMVKT6wN9UtyVXzt48AZittCKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiuLpmOGJyB385UyQioWMVKT6wN9UtyVXzt48AZittCKg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 12:18:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wik7T+FoDAfqFPuMGVp6HxKYOf8UeKt3+EmovfivSgQ2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Again, semantics do matter, and I don't see how the compiler could
> actually break the fundamental issue of "load->conditional->store is a
> fundamental ordering even without memory barriers because of basic
> causality", because you can't just arbitrarily generate speculative
> stores that would be visible to others.

This, after all, is why we trust that the *hardware* can't do it.

Even if the hardware mis-speculates and goes down the wrong branch,
and speculatively does the store when it shouldn't have, we don't
care: we know that such a speculative store can not possibly become
semantically visible (*) to other threads.

For all the same reasons, I don't see how a compiler can violate
causal ordering of the code (assuming, again, that the test is
_meaningful_ - if we write nonsensical code, that's a different
issue).

If we have compilers that create speculative stores that are visible
to other threads, we need to fix them.

               Linus

(*) By "semantically visible" I intend to avoid the whole timing/cache
pattern kind of non-semantic visibility that is all about the spectre
leakage kind of things.