Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Sergey Fedorov <serge.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/06/16 07:03, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>>> diff --git a/tcg/tcg.h b/tcg/tcg.h
>>> index db6a062..36feca9 100644
>>> --- a/tcg/tcg.h
>>> +++ b/tcg/tcg.h
>>> @@ -408,6 +408,20 @@ static inline intptr_t QEMU_ARTIFICIAL
>>> GET_TCGV_PTR(TCGv_ptr t)
>>> #define TCG_CALL_DUMMY_TCGV MAKE_TCGV_I32(-1)
>>> #define TCG_CALL_DUMMY_ARG ((TCGArg)(-1))
>>>
>>> +typedef enum {
>>> + TCG_MO_LD_LD = 1,
>>> + TCG_MO_ST_LD = 2,
>>> + TCG_MO_LD_ST = 4,
>>> + TCG_MO_ST_ST = 8,
>>> + TCG_MO_ALL = 0xF, // OR of all above
>>
>> So TCG_MO_ALL specifies a so called "full" memory barrier?
>
> This enum just specifies what loads and stores need to be ordered.
>
> TCG_MO_ALL specifies that we need to order both previous loads and
> stores with later loads and stores. To get a full memory barrier you
> will need to pair it with BAR_SC:
>
> TCG_MO_ALL | TCG_BAR_SC
>
>>
>>> +} TCGOrder;
>>> +
>>> +typedef enum {
>>> + TCG_BAR_ACQ = 32,
>>> + TCG_BAR_REL = 64,
>>
>> I'm convinced that the only practical way to represent a standalone
>> acquire memory barrier is to order all previous loads with all
>> subsequent loads and stores. Similarly, a standalone release memory
>> barrier would order all previous loads and stores with all subsequent
>> stores. [1]
>
> Yes, here acquire would be:
>
> (TCG_MO_LD_ST | TCG_MO_LD_LD) | TCG_BAR_ACQ
>
> and release would be:
>
> (TCG_MO_ST_ST | TCG_MO_LD_ST) | TCG_BAR_REL
>
>>
>> On the other hand, acquire or release semantic associated with a memory
>> operation itself can be directly mapped into e.g. AArch64's Load-Acquire
>> (LDAR) and Store-Release (STLR) instructions. A standalone barrier
>> adjacent to a memory operation shouldn't be mapped this way because it
>> should provide more strict guarantees than e.g. AArch64 instructions
>> mentioned above.
>
> You are right. That is why the load-acquire operation generates the
> stronger barrier:
>
> TCG_MO_ALL | TCG_BAR_ACQ and not the acquire barrier above. Similarly
> for store-release.
>
>>
>> Therefore, I advocate for clear distinction between standalone memory
>> barriers and implicit memory ordering semantics associated with memory
>> operations themselves.
>
> Any suggestions on how to make the distinction clearer? I will add a
> detailed comment like the above but please let me know if you have
> anything in mind.
>
>>
>> [1] http://preshing.com/20130922/acquire-and-release-fences/
>>
>>> + TCG_BAR_SC = 128,
>>
>> How's that different from TCG_MO_ALL?
>
> TCG_BAR_* tells us what ordering is enforced. TCG_MO_* tells what on
> what operations the ordering is to be enforced.
This would be worthwhile in the comments. I'm confused by the fact we
have two sets of enums that are going to be merged when building TCGOp
parameters.
--
Alex Bennée
