public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: peterz@infradead•org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:10:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161005151057.GJ3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54b18de220f61747bf1c3cdf2a1b9447@codeaurora.org>

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:55:57AM -0400, bdegraaf at codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2016-10-04 15:12, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >Hi Brent,
> >
> >Could you *please* clarify if you are trying to solve:
> >
> >(a) a correctness issue (e.g. data corruption) seen in practice.
> >(b) a correctness issue (e.g. data corruption) found by inspection.
> >(c) A performance issue, seen in practice.
> >(d) A performance issue, found by inspection.
> >
> >Any one of these is fine; we just need to know in order to be able to
> >help effectively, and so far it hasn't been clear.

Brent, you forgot to state which: 'a-d' is the case here.

> I found the problem.
> 
> Back in September of 2013, arm64 atomics were broken due to missing barriers
> in certain situations, but the problem at that time was undiscovered.
> 
> Will Deacon's commit d2212b4dce596fee83e5c523400bf084f4cc816c went in at
> that
> time and changed the correct cmpxchg64 in lockref.c to cmpxchg64_relaxed.
> 
> d2212b4 appeared to be OK at that time because the additional barrier
> requirements of this specific code sequence were not yet discovered, and
> this change was consistent with the arm64 atomic code of that time.
> 
> Around February of 2014, some discovery led Will to correct the problem with
> the atomic code via commit 8e86f0b409a44193f1587e87b69c5dcf8f65be67, which
> has an excellent explanation of potential ordering problems with the same
> code sequence used by lockref.c.
> 
> With this updated understanding, the earlier commit
> (d2212b4dce596fee83e5c523400bf084f4cc816c) should be reverted.
> 
> Because acquire/release semantics are insufficient for the full ordering,
> the single barrier after the store exclusive is the best approach, similar
> to Will's atomic barrier fix.

This again does not in fact describe the problem.

What is the problem with lockref, and how (refer the earlier a-d
multiple choice answer) was this found.

Now, I have been looking, and we have some idea what you _might_ be
alluding to, but please explain which accesses get reordered how and
cause problems.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-05 15:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-30 17:40 [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Brent DeGraaf
2016-09-30 18:43 ` Robin Murphy
2016-10-01 15:45   ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-09-30 18:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-30 19:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-01 15:59   ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-09-30 19:32 ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-01 16:11   ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-01 18:11     ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-03 19:20       ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-04  6:50         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-04 10:12         ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-04 17:53           ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-04 18:28             ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-04 19:12             ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-05 14:55               ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-05 15:10                 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-10-05 15:30                   ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-12 20:01                     ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-13 11:02                       ` Will Deacon
2016-10-13 20:00                         ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org
2016-10-14  0:24                           ` Mark Rutland
2016-10-05 15:11                 ` bdegraaf at codeaurora.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20161005151057.GJ3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead$(echo .)org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox