This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PING2][PATCHv3] PowerPC: Fix a race condition when eliding a lock
- From: "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: carlos at redhat dot com, adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Cc:
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:31:05 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PING2][PATCHv3] PowerPC: Fix a race condition when eliding a lock
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55D742D3 dot 9050600 at redhat dot com> <1440439895-11812-1-git-send-email-tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1440507739 dot 27492 dot 183 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain> <87oahv9g27 dot fsf at totoro dot lan> <1440578622 dot 30828 dot 40 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain> <871teq6mgh dot fsf at totoro dot lan> <87y4gqtf2f dot fsf at totoro dot lan>
Ping x2.
"Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Ping, Torvald.
>
>
> "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 19:08 -0300, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
>>> wrote:
>>>> Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 15:11 -0300, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
>>>> >> + threads, either during lock acquisition, or elision. In order to avoid
>>>> >> + this evaluation from becoming a data race the access of is_lock_free
>>>> >
>>>> > It could be a data race because you're not using atomics there, but
>>>> > that's not the whole point. (We use the term "data race" specifically
>>>> > to refer to the C11/C++11 memory model concept of the same name.)
>>>> > You want to ensure the lock elision synchronization scheme, and thus are
>>>> > moving it inside the txn.
>>>>
>>>> Are you complaining about the usage of the term "data race"?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> If so, what about "race condition"?
>>>
>>> Well, that would be better, but a race condition is not necessarily a
>>> bad thing. It's usually better to say which execution or interleaving
>>> you need to avoid, than just saying "race condition".
>>
>> What about the following?
>>
>> /* CONCURRENCY NOTES:
>>
>> The macro expression is_lock_free is read and possibly written to by
>> multiple threads, either during lock acquisition, or elision. In order to
>> avoid this evaluation from becoming a race condition with the lock
>> acquirement from the lock primitive, the access of is_lock_free is placed
>> *inside* the transaction. Within the transaction we are assured that all
>> memory accesses are atomic and is_lock_free can be evaluated with relaxed
>> memory order. That way, the value of is_lock_free is consistent with the
>> state of the lock until the end of the transaction. */
>
> Anything else you'd like to change before I push this?
>
> Thanks,
--
Tulio Magno