On Sun, Sep 29, 2024, at 6:26 AM, Alan Huang wrote:
> 2024年9月28日 23:55，Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote：
>>
>> On 2024-09-28 17:49, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 11:32:18AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-28 16:49, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 09:51:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>>> equality, which does not preserve address dependencies and allows the
>>>>>> following misordering speculations:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - If @b is a constant, the compiler can issue the loads which depend
>>>>>> on @a before loading @a.
>>>>>> - If @b is a register populated by a prior load, weakly-ordered
>>>>>> CPUs can speculate loads which depend on @a before loading @a.
>>>>>
>>>>> It shouldn't matter whether @a and @b are constants, registers, or
>>>>> anything else. All that matters is that the compiler uses the wrong
>>>>> one, which allows weakly ordered CPUs to speculate loads you wouldn't
>>>>> expect it to, based on the source code alone.
>>>>
>>>> I only partially agree here.
>>>>
>>>> On weakly-ordered architectures, indeed we don't care whether the
>>>> issue is caused by the compiler reordering the code (constant)
>>>> or the CPU speculating the load (registers).
>>>>
>>>> However, on strongly-ordered architectures, AFAIU, only the constant
>>>> case is problematic (compiler reordering the dependent load), because
>>> I thought you were trying to prevent the compiler from using one pointer
>>> instead of the other, not trying to prevent it from reordering anything.
>>> Isn't this the point the documentation wants to get across when it says
>>> that comparing pointers can be dangerous?
>>
>> The motivation for introducing ptr_eq() is indeed because the
>> compiler barrier is not sufficient to prevent the compiler from
>> using one pointer instead of the other.
>
> barrier_data(&b) prevents that.
>
It prevents that because it acts as barrier() + OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(b).
I don’t see much value of using that since we can resolve the problem
with OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() alone.
Regards,
Boqun
>>
>> But it turns out that ptr_eq() is also a good tool to prevent the
>> compiler from reordering loads in case where the comparison is
>> done against a constant.
>>
>>>> CPU speculating the loads across the control dependency is not an
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> So am I tempted to keep examples that clearly state whether
>>>> the issue is caused by compiler reordering instructions, or by
>>>> CPU speculation.
>>> Isn't it true that on strongly ordered CPUs, a compiler barrier is
>>> sufficient to prevent the rcu_dereference() problem? So the whole idea
>>> behind ptr_eq() is that it prevents the problem on all CPUs.
>>
>> Correct. But given that we have ptr_eq(), it's good to show how it
>> equally prevents the compiler from reordering address-dependent loads
>> (comparison with constant) *and* prevents the compiler from using
>> one pointer rather than the other (comparison between two non-constant
>> pointers) which affects speculation on weakly-ordered CPUs.
>>
>>> You can make your examples as specific as you like, but the fact remains
>>> that ptr_eq() is meant to prevent situations where both:
>>> The compiler uses the wrong pointer for a load, and
>>> The CPU performs the load earlier than you want.
>>> If either one of those doesn't hold then the problem won't arise.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>> EfficiOS Inc.
>> https://www.efficios.com
>>
>>
