Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-186683-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <22b9837b-16c2-5413-3cd7-4d3a47252a6a@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 21:48:18 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: LKMM: Making RMW barriers explicit
Content-Language: en-US
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
 Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
 j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk, luc.maranget@inria.fr,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
References: <72c804c8-2511-4349-a823-bc1de8bb729e@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <e030f7a4-97e7-4e91-bbae-230ee5c97763@huaweicloud.com>
 <a9bf972c-b5ee-f1c2-36bf-30ba62f419d7@huaweicloud.com>
 <2f20e7cf-7c67-4ad3-8a0c-3c1d01257ae4@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <0c309dd3-f8c1-4945-b8f1-154b2a775216@huaweicloud.com>
 <4286e5b2-5954-4c77-a815-c1c2735d9509@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <58042cf3-e515-4e5f-ab48-1d0d6123c9e9@huaweicloud.com>
 <6174fd09-b287-49ae-b117-c3a36ef3800a@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <Zk4jQe7Vq3N2Vip0@andrea>
 <ba7120a5-9208-4506-bf99-2bfa165180c5@rowland.harvard.edu>
From: Hernan Ponce de Leon <hernan.poncedeleon@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <ba7120a5-9208-4506-bf99-2bfa165180c5@rowland.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/22/2024 8:20 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 06:54:25PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
>> Alan, all,
>>
>> ("randomly" picking a recent post in the thread, after having observed
>> this discussion for a while...)
>>
>>> It would be better if there was a way to tell herd7 not to add the 'mb
>>> tag to failed instructions in the first place.  This approach is
>>> brittle; see below.
>>
>> AFAIU, changing the herd representation to generate mb-accesses in place
>> of certain mb-fences...
> 
> I believe herd7 already generates mb accesses (not fences) for certain
> RMW operations.  But then it does some post-processing on them, and that
> post-processing is what we are thinking of changing.
> 
>>> If you do want to use this approach, it should be simplified.  All you
>>> need is:
>>>
>>> 	[M] ; po ; [RMW_MB]
>>>
>>> 	[RMW_MB] ; po ; [M]
>>>
>>> This is because events tagged with RMW_MB always are memory accesses,
>>> and accesses that aren't part of the RMW are already covered by the
>>> fencerel(Mb) thing above.
>>
>> ... and updating the .cat file to the effects of something like
>>
>>    -let mb = ([M] ; fencerel(Mb) ; [M]) |
>>    +let mb = (([M] ; po? ; [Mb] ; po? ; [M]) \ id) |
>>
>> ... can hardly be called "making RMW barriers explicit".  (So much so
>> that the first commit in PR #865 was titled "Remove explicit barriers
>> from RMWs".  :-))
> 
> There is another point, something we didn't spell out explicitly in the
> email discussion.  Namely, in linux-kernel.def there is a long list of
> instructions along with corresponding herd7 implementation instructions,
> and those instructions explicitly contain either {once}, {acquire},
> {release}, or {mb} tags.  So to a large extent, these barriers already
> are explicit in the memory model.  Not in the .cat file, but in the .def
> file.
> 
> What is not so explicit is how the {mb} tag works.  Its operation isn't
> as simple as the operation of the {acquire} and {release} tags; those
> just modify the R or W access in the RMW pair as you would expect.
> Instead, an {mb} tag says to insert strong memory barriers before the R
> access and after the W access.  This is more or less what the
> post-processing mentioned earlier does, and Jonas and Hernan want to
> move this out of herd7 and into the memory model.
> 
>> Overall, this discussion rather seems to confirm the close link between
>> tools/memory-model/ and herdtools7.  (After all, to what extent could
>> any putative RMW_MB be considered "explicit" without _knowing the under-
>> lying representation of the RMW operations...)  My understanding is that
>> this discussion was at least in part motivated by a desire to experiment
>> and familiarize with the current herd representation (that does indeed
>> require some getting-used-to...); this suggests, as some of you already
>> mentioned, to add some comments or a .txt in tools/memory-model/ in order
>> to document such representation and ameliorate that experience.  OTOH, I
>> must admit, I'm unable to see here sufficient motivation(tm) for changing
>> the current representation (and model): not the how, but the why...
> 
> Well, it's not a big change.  And in my opinion, if something can be
> moved out of herd7's innards and into the memory model files, then doing
> so is generally a good idea.
> 
> However, I do agree that there will still be a close link between
> tools/memory-model/ and herdtools7.  This may be unavoidable, at least
> to some extent, but any way to reduce it is worth considering.

I can give my motivation as a tool developer. It would be much simpler 
if one could find all the information to support lkmm in 
tools/memory-model/ (in the form of the model + some comments or a .txt 
to cover those things we cannot move out of the tool implementation), 
rather than having to dive into herd7 code.

Hernan

> 
> Alan