Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1495920

Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:55:57AM -0400, bdegraaf@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.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Brent DeGraaf <bdegraaf@codeaurora.org> - 2016-09-30 19:50 +0200
  Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> - 2016-09-30 20:50 +0200
    Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-01 17:50 +0200
  Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-30 21:00 +0200
  Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-30 21:10 +0200
    Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-01 18:10 +0200
  Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-09-30 21:40 +0200
    Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-01 18:20 +0200
      Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-10-01 20:20 +0200
        Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-03 21:30 +0200
          Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-04 09:00 +0200
          Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-10-04 12:20 +0200
            Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-04 20:00 +0200
              Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-04 20:30 +0200
              Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-10-04 21:20 +0200
                Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-05 17:00 +0200
                Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-05 17:20 +0200
                Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-05 17:20 +0200
                Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-05 17:40 +0200
                Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data bdegraaf@codeaurora.org - 2016-10-12 22:10 +0200

csiph-web