|
@@ -697,30 +697,36 @@ should do something like the following:
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. This is
|
|
Finally, control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity. This is
|
|
-demonstrated by two related examples:
|
|
|
|
|
|
+demonstrated by two related examples, with the initial values of
|
|
|
|
+x and y both being zero:
|
|
|
|
|
|
CPU 0 CPU 1
|
|
CPU 0 CPU 1
|
|
===================== =====================
|
|
===================== =====================
|
|
r1 = ACCESS_ONCE(x); r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(y);
|
|
r1 = ACCESS_ONCE(x); r2 = ACCESS_ONCE(y);
|
|
- if (r1 >= 0) if (r2 >= 0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ if (r1 > 0) if (r2 > 0)
|
|
ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 1; ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 1;
|
|
ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 1; ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert(!(r1 == 1 && r2 == 1));
|
|
assert(!(r1 == 1 && r2 == 1));
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above two-CPU example will never trigger the assert(). However,
|
|
The above two-CPU example will never trigger the assert(). However,
|
|
if control dependencies guaranteed transitivity (which they do not),
|
|
if control dependencies guaranteed transitivity (which they do not),
|
|
-then adding the following two CPUs would guarantee a related assertion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
+then adding the following CPU would guarantee a related assertion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- CPU 2 CPU 3
|
|
|
|
- ===================== =====================
|
|
|
|
- ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 2; ACCESS_ONCE(y) = 2;
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ CPU 2
|
|
|
|
+ =====================
|
|
|
|
+ ACCESS_ONCE(x) = 2;
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ assert(!(r1 == 2 && r2 == 1 && x == 2)); /* FAILS!!! */
|
|
|
|
|
|
- assert(!(r1 == 2 && r2 == 2 && x == 1 && y == 1)); /* FAILS!!! */
|
|
|
|
|
|
+But because control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity, the above
|
|
|
|
+assertion can fail after the combined three-CPU example completes. If you
|
|
|
|
+need the three-CPU example to provide ordering, you will need smp_mb()
|
|
|
|
+between the loads and stores in the CPU 0 and CPU 1 code fragments,
|
|
|
|
+that is, just before or just after the "if" statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-But because control dependencies do -not- provide transitivity, the
|
|
|
|
-above assertion can fail after the combined four-CPU example completes.
|
|
|
|
-If you need the four-CPU example to provide ordering, you will need
|
|
|
|
-smp_mb() between the loads and stores in the CPU 0 and CPU 1 code fragments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+These two examples are the LB and WWC litmus tests from this paper:
|
|
|
|
+http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/pes20/ppc-supplemental/test6.pdf and this
|
|
|
|
+site: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/ppcmem/index.html.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In summary:
|
|
In summary:
|
|
|
|
|