Is the thorn the many allowed outcomes, or the single disallowed
outcome? (eg order consistency is too strict for stores with no
synchronizes-with between them?)
Alex
On 26/11/2014 02:10, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Hans,
Given IRIW is a thorn in everyone's side and has no known useful
benefit, and can hopefully be killed off in the future, lets not get
bogged down in IRIW. But none of what you say below relates to
multi-copy-atomicity.
Cheers,
David
-----Original Message-----
*From:* hjkhbo...@gmail.com [mailto:hjkhbo...@gmail.com]*On Behalf
Of *Hans Boehm
*Sent:* Wednesday, 26 November 2014 12:04 PM
*To:* dhol...@ieee.org
*Cc:* Stephan Diestelhorst; concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu;
core-libs-dev
*Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] RFR: 8065804:
JEP171:Clarifications/corrections for fence intrinsics
To be concrete here, on Power, loads can normally be ordered by an
address dependency or light-weight fence (lwsync). However,
neither is enough to prevent the questionable outcome for IRIW,
since it doesn't ensure that the stores in T1 and T2 will be made
visible to other threads in a consistent order. That outcome can
be prevented by using heavyweight fences (sync) instructions
between the loads instead. Peter Sewell's group concluded that to
enforce correct volatile behavior on Power, you essentially need a
a heavyweight fence between every pair of volatile operations on
Power. That cannot be understood based on simple ordering
constraints.
As Stephan pointed out, there are similar issues on ARM, but
they're less commonly encountered in a Java implementation. If
you're lucky, you can get to the right implementation recipe by
looking at only reordering, I think.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, David Holmes
<davidchol...@aapt.net.au <mailto:davidchol...@aapt.net.au>> wrote:
Stephan Diestelhorst writes:
>
> David Holmes wrote:
> > Stephan Diestelhorst writes:
> > > Am Dienstag, 25. November 2014, 11:15:36 schrieb Hans Boehm:
> > > > I'm no hardware architect, but fundamentally it seems
to me that
> > > >
> > > > load x
> > > > acquire_fence
> > > >
> > > > imposes a much more stringent constraint than
> > > >
> > > > load_acquire x
> > > >
> > > > Consider the case in which the load from x is an L1
hit, but a
> > > > preceding load (from say y) is a long-latency miss.
If we enforce
> > > > ordering by just waiting for completion of prior
operation, the
> > > > former has to wait for the load from y to complete;
while the
> > > > latter doesn't. I find it hard to believe that this
doesn't leave
> > > > an appreciable amount of performance on the table, at
least for
> > > > some interesting microarchitectures.
> > >
> > > I agree, Hans, that this is a reasonable assumption.
Load_acquire x
> > > does allow roach motel, whereas the acquire fence does not.
> > >
> > > > In addition, for better or worse, fencing
requirements on at least
> > > > Power are actually driven as much by store atomicity
issues, as by
> > > > the ordering issues discussed in the cookbook. This
was not
> > > > understood in 2005, and unfortunately doesn't seem to be
> amenable to
> > > > the kind of straightforward explanation as in Doug's
cookbook.
> > >
> > > Coming from a strongly ordered architecture to a weakly
ordered one
> > > myself, I also needed some mental adjustment about store
(multi-copy)
> > > atomicity. I can imagine others will be unaware of this
difference,
> > > too, even in 2014.
> >
> > Sorry I'm missing the connection between fences and multi-copy
> atomicity.
>
> One example is the classic IRIW. With non-multi copy atomic
stores, but
> ordered (say through a dependency) loads in the following
example:
>
> Memory: foo = bar = 0
> _T1_ _T2_ _T3_ _T4_
> st (foo),1 st (bar),1 ld r1, (bar) ld r3,(foo)
> <addr dep / local "fence" here>
<addr dep>
> ld r2, (foo) ld r4, (bar)
>
> You may observe r1 = 1, r2 = 0, r3 = 1, r4 = 0 on
non-multi-copy atomic
> machines. On TSO boxes, this is not possible. That means
that the
> memory fence that will prevent such a behaviour (DMB on ARM)
needs to
> carry some additional oomph in ensuring multi-copy
atomicity, or rather
> prevent you from seeing it (which is the same thing).
I take it as given that any code for which you may have ordering
constraints, must first have basic atomicity properties for
loads and
stores. I would not expect any kind of fence to add
multi-copy-atomicity
where there was none.
David
> Stephan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
<mailto:concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu>
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
<mailto:concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu>
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
