Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 02/03/2012 12:16 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
This would be __atomic_fetch_add, __atomic_fetch_sub, and __atomic_compare_exchange.So we have several atomics we use in the kernel, with the more common being - add (and subtract) and cmpchg of both 'int' and 'long'
For 4.8 __atomic_compare_exchange is planned to be better optimized then it is now... ie, it currently uses the same form as c++ requires:
atomic_compare_exchange (&var, &expected, value, weak/strong, memorymodel).
'expected' is updated in place with the current value if it doesn't match. With the address of expected taken, we dont always do a good job generating code for it... I plan to remedy that in 4.8 so that it is efficient and doesn't impact optimization of 'expected' elsewhere.
__atomic_add_fetch returns the new value. (__atomic_fetch_add returns the old value). If it isn't as efficient as it needs to be, the RTL pattern can be fixed. what sequence do you currently use for this? The compiler currently generates the equivilent of- add_return (add and return new value)
lock; xadd addie, it performs the atomic add then re-adds the same value to the previous value to get the atomic post-add value. If there is something more efficient, we ought to be able to do the same.
Since these are older x86 only, could you use add_return() always and then have the compiler use new peephole optimizations to detect those usage patterns and change the instruction sequence for x86 when required? would that be acceptable? Or maybe you don't trust the compiler :-) Or maybe I can innocently ask if the performance impact on older x86 matters enough any more? :-)- special cases of the above: dec_and_test (decrement and test result for zero) inc_and_test (decrement and test result for zero) add_negative (add and check if result is negative) The special cases are because older x86 cannot do the generic "add_return" efficiently - it needs xadd - but can do atomic versions that test the end result and give zero or sign information.
- atomic_add_unless() - basically an optimized cmpxchg.
is this the reverse of a compare_exchange and add? Ie, add if the value ISN'T expected? or some form of compare_exchange_and_add? This might require a new atomic builltin.
What exactly does it do?
Are these functions wrappers to a tight load, mask, cmpxchg loop? or something else? These could also require new built-ins if they can't be constructed from the existing operations...- atomic bit array operations (bit set, clear, set-and-test, clear-and-test). We do them on "unsigned long" exclusively, and in fact we do them on arrays of unsigned long, ie we have the whole "bts reg,mem" semantics. I'm not sure we really care about the atomic versions for the arrays, so it's possible we only really care about a single long. The only complication with the bit setting is that we have a concept of "set/clear bit with memory barrier before or after the bit" (for locking). We don't do the whole release/acquire thing, though.
The existing __atomic builtins will work on 1,2,4,8 or 16 byte values regardless of type, as long as the hardware supports those sizes. so x86-64 can do a 16 byte cmpxchg.- compare_xchg_double We also do byte/word atomic increments and decrements, but that' sin the x86 spinlock implementation, so it's not a generic need.
In theory, the add_fetch and sub_fetch are suppose to use INC/DEC if the operand is 1/-1 and the result isn't used. If it isnt doing this right now, I will fix it.
It may be possible to add modifier extensions to the memory model component for such a thing. ieWe also do the add version in particular as CPU-local optimizations that do not need to be SMP-safe, but do need to be interrupt-safe. On x86, this is just an r-m-w op, on most other architectures it ends up being the usual load-locked/store-conditional.
v = __atomic_add_fetch (&v, __ATOMIC_RELAXED | __ATOMIC_CPU_LOCAL)which will allow fine tuning for something more specific like this. Targets which dont care can ignore it, but x86 could have atomic_add avoid the lock when the CPU_LOCAL modifier flag is present.
I think that's pretty much it, but maybe I'm missing something. Of course, locking itself tends to be special cases of the above with extra memory barriers, but it's usually hidden in asm for other reasons (the bit-op + barrier being a special case).
All of the __atomic operations are currently optimization barriers in both directions, the optimizers tend to treat them like function calls. I hope to enable some sorts of optimizations eventually, especially based on memory model... but for now we play it safe.
Synchronization barriers are inserted based on the memory model used. If it can be determined that something additional is required that the existing memory model doesn't cover, it could be possible to add extensions beyond the c++11 memory model.. ( ie add new __ATOMIC_OTHER_BARRIER_KIND models)
Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html