MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230204222411.GC2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <Y9+41ctA54pjm/KG@google.com> <Y+FJSzUoGTgReLPB@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <Y+fN2fvUjGDWBYrv@google.com> <Y+f4TYZ9BPlt8y8B@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <CAEXW_YRuTfjc=5OAskTV0Qt_zSJTPP3-01=Y=SypMdPsF_weAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+hWAksfk4C0M2gB@rowland.harvard.edu> <CAEXW_YQUOgYxYUNkQ9W6PS-JPwPSOFU5B=COV7Vf+qNF1jFC7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+ppzKlvzQIE18Hu@rowland.harvard.edu> <CAEXW_YRc0qtan5hbTFUeP7B8f-q5BQJS_d2TpKqZ8_aX5A=b2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+rqi1avpv7obhrg@rowland.harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Y+rqi1avpv7obhrg@rowland.harvard.edu>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 21:12:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQGKRnBwnNYu1EFSYi7FimRR2H8hjAzER3x7U9PxMre1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Current LKMM patch disposition
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com, mingo@kernel.org, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        will@kernel.org, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 8:57 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 07:36:42PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Thanks, I agree with most of your last email, just replying to one thing:
> >
> > > > ->rf does because of data flow causality, ->ppo does because of
> > > > program structure, so that makes sense to be ->hb.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, ->rfi should as well, because it is embodying a flow of data, so
> > > > that is a bit confusing. It would be great to clarify more perhaps
> > > > with an example about why ->rfi cannot be ->hb, in the
> > > > "happens-before" section.
> > >
> > > Maybe.  We do talk about store forwarding, and in fact the ppo section
> > > already says:
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >         R ->dep W ->rfi R',
> > >
> > > where the dep link can be either an address or a data dependency.  In
> > > this situation we know it is possible for the CPU to execute R' before
> > > W, because it can forward the value that W will store to R'.
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thank you for pointing this out! In the text that follows this, in
> > this paragraph:
> >
> > <quote>
> > where the dep link can be either an address or a data dependency.  In
> > this situation we know it is possible for the CPU to execute R' before
> > W, because it can forward the value that W will store to R'.  But it
> > cannot execute R' before R, because it cannot forward the value before
> > it knows what that value is, or that W and R' do access the same
> > location.
> > </quote>
> >
> > The "in this situation" should be clarified that the "situation" is a
> > data-dependency. Only in the case of data-dependency,  the ->rfi
> > cannot cause misordering if I understand it correctly. However, that
> > sentence does not mention data-dependency explicitly. Or let me know
> > if I missed something?
>
> The text explicitly says that the dep link can be either an address or a
> data dependency.  In either case, R' cannot be reordered before R.
>
> In theory this doesn't have to be true for address dependencies, because
> the CPU might realize that W and R' access the same address without
> knowing what that address is.  However, I've been reliably informed that
> no existing architectures do this sort of optimization.
>
> The case of a control dependency is different, because the CPU can
> speculate that W will be executed and can speculatively forward the
> value from W to R' before it knows what value R will read.
>

Sorry, I misread it. You are right. Got it now, Thanks.

 - Joel