On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:06:54PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:50:28PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:20:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > Hopefully some discussion of out-of-thin-air values as well. > > > > > > > > Yes, absolutely shoot store speculation in the head already. Then drive > > > > a wooden stake through its hart. > > > > > > > > C11/C++11 should not be allowed to claim itself a memory model until > > > > that > > > > is sorted. > > > > > > There actually is a proposal being put forward, but it might not make ARM > > > and Power people happy because it involves adding a compare, a branch, > > > and an ISB/isync after every relaxed load... Me, I agree with you, > > > much preferring the no-store-speculation approach. > > > > Can you elaborate a bit on this please? We don't permit speculative stores > > in the ARM architecture, so it seems counter-intuitive that GCC needs to > > emit any additional instructions to prevent that from happening. > > > > Stores can, of course, be observed out-of-order but that's a lot more > > reasonable :) > > This is more about the compiler speculating on stores; imagine: > > if (x) > y = 1; > else > y = 2; > > The compiler is allowed to change that into: > > y = 2; > if (x) > y = 1; > > Which is of course a big problem when you want to rely on the ordering.
Understood, but that doesn't explain why Paul wants to add ISB/isync instructions which affect the *CPU* rather than the compiler! Will
