From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
bobby.prani@gmail.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/5] documentation: Record limitations of bitfields and small variables
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:00:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1414533617-25933-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141028215937.GA25095@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
This commit documents the fact that it is not safe to use bitfields
as shared variables in synchronization algorithms. It also documents
that CPUs must provide one-byte and two-byte normal load and store
instructions in order to be supported by the Linux kernel. (Michael
Cree has agreed to the resulting non-support of pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/5/143.)
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 22a969cdd476..d6bc77eb179a 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -269,6 +269,37 @@ And there are a number of things that _must_ or _must_not_ be assumed:
STORE *(A + 4) = Y; STORE *A = X;
STORE {*A, *(A + 4) } = {X, Y};
+And there are anti-guarantees:
+
+ (*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often
+ generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write
+ sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel
+ algorithms.
+
+ (*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields
+ in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields
+ in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler's
+ non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one
+ field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.
+
+ (*) These guarantees apply only to properly aligned and sized scalar
+ variables. "Properly sized" currently means variables that are
+ the same size as "char", "short", "int" and "long". "Properly
+ aligned" means the natural alignment, thus no constraints for
+ "char", two-byte alignment for "short", four-byte alignment for
+ "int", and either four-byte or eight-byte alignment for "long",
+ on 32-bit and 64-bit systems, respectively. Note that this means
+ that the Linux kernel does not support pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs,
+ because these older CPUs do not provide one-byte and two-byte
+ load and store instructions. (In theory, the pre-EV56 Alpha CPUs
+ can emulate these instructions using load-linked/store-conditional
+ instructions, but in practice this approach has excessive overhead.
+ Keep in mind that this emulation would be required on -all- single-
+ and double-byte loads and stores in order to handle adjacent bytes
+ protected by different locks.)
+
+ Alpha EV56 and later Alpha CPUs are still supported.
+
=========================
WHAT ARE MEMORY BARRIERS?
--
1.8.1.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-28 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-28 21:59 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/5] Documentation updates for 3.19 Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-28 22:00 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-10-28 22:00 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/5] documentation: Document RCU self test boot params Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-28 22:00 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/5] documentation: Additional restriction for control dependencies Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-28 22:00 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] documentation: Add atomic_long_t to atomic_ops.txt Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-28 22:00 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 5/5] documentation: memory-barriers.txt: Correct example for reorderings Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-29 17:58 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/5] Documentation updates for 3.19 Pranith Kumar
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=1414533617-25933-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®