Date:   Sun, 19 Feb 2023 00:09:21 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        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
Subject: Re: Current LKMM patch disposition
Message-ID: <20230219080921.GG2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
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_YQ3fvFDNi9wG5w4Zqkbda8SUByOnM6y6MXQpxT9oQw8xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230218192123.GC2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
 <CAEXW_YT-wMxQUXzB0hinCf-f7d7+cG3cALF55ehDe1b4aYob3Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YT-wMxQUXzB0hinCf-f7d7+cG3cALF55ehDe1b4aYob3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 10:20:39PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 2:21 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 01:13:59AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > Hi Alan,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 9:59 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Would you like to post a few examples showing some of the most difficult
> > > > points you encountered?  Maybe explanation.txt can be improved.
> > >
> > > One additional feedback I wanted to mention, regarding this paragraph
> > > under "WARNING":
> > > ===========
> > > The protections provided by READ_ONCE(), WRITE_ONCE(), and others are
> > > not perfect; and under some circumstances it is possible for the
> > > compiler to undermine the memory model. Here is an example. Suppose
> > > both branches of an "if" statement store the same value to the same
> > > location:
> > > r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
> > > if (r1) {
> > > WRITE_ONCE(y, 2);
> > > ... /* do something */
> > > } else {
> > > WRITE_ONCE(y, 2);
> > > ... /* do something else */
> > > }
> > > ===========
> > >
> > > I tried lots of different compilers with varying degrees of
> > > optimization, in all cases I find that the conditional instruction
> > > always appears in program order before the stores inside the body of
> > > the conditional. So I am not sure if this is really a valid concern on
> > > current compilers, if not - could you provide an example of a compiler
> > > and options that cause it?
> > >
> > > In any case, if it is a theoretical concern, it could be clarified
> > > that this is a theoretical possibility in the text.  And if it is a
> > > real/practical concern, then it could be mentioned the specific
> > > compiler/arch this was seen in.
> >
> > I could be misremembering, but I believe that this reordering has been
> > seen in the past.
> >
> 
> Thank you! And I also confirmed putting a barrier() in the branch
> body, also "cures" the optimization... I did not know compilers
> optimize so aggressively..

And the compilers are just getting started...  :-/

							Thanx, Paul