Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:08:27 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Nicholas 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>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        kent.overstreet@gmail.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        elver@google.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rust: types: Add read_once and write_once
Message-ID: <272fb0fa-bff7-4ccf-bea1-fba388c5d512@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20231025195339.1431894-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20231026081345.GJ31411@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20231026113610.1425be1b@eugeo>
 <20231026111625.GK33965@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231026111625.GK33965@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 01:16:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:36:10AM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> 
> > There's two reasons that we are using volatile read/write as opposed to
> > relaxed atomic:
> > * Rust lacks volatile atomics at the moment. Non-volatile atomics are
> >   not sufficient because the compiler is allowed (although they
> >   currently don't) optimise atomics. If you have two adjacent relaxed
> >   loads, they could be merged into one.
> 
> Ah yes, that would be problematic, eg, if lifted out of a loop things
> could go sideways fast.
> 
> > * Atomics only works for integer types determined by the platform. On
> >   some 32-bit platforms you wouldn't be able to use 64-bit atomics at
> >   all, and on x86 you get less optimal sequence since volatile load is
> >   permitted to tear while atomic load needs to use LOCK CMPXCHG8B.
> 
> We only grudgingly allowed u64 READ_ONCE() on 32bit platforms because
> the fallout was too numerous to fix. Some of them are probably bugs.
> 
> Also, I think cmpxchg8b without lock prefix would be sufficient, but
> I've got too much of a head-ache to be sure. Worse is that we still
> support targets without cmpxchg8b.

Plus cmpxchg8b can be quite a bit heavier weight than READ_ONCE(),
in some cases to the point that you would instead use some other
concurrency design.

> It might be interesting to make the Rust side more strict in this regard
> and see where/when we run into trouble.

And maybe have some other name for READ_ONCE() that is permitted to tear.

> > * Atomics doesn't work for complex structs. Although I am not quite sure
> >   of the value of supporting it.
> 
> So on the C side we mandate the size is no larger than machine word,
> with the exception of the u64 on 32bit thing. We don't mandate strict
> integer types because things like pte_t are wrapper types.

On C-language atomics, people who have talked about implementing atomics
for objects too large for tear-free loads and stores have tended to want
ot invent locks.  :-(

							Thanx, Paul