RFR(M): Memory ordering in taskqueue.hpp

[Vitaly Davidovich]

Hmm, if load fences on the reader aren't sufficient, seems like the problem
is missing order/fence on the writer? If the write isn't visible to all
processors immediately on power, shouldn't there be a fence in the write to
ensure all CPUs see it? Putting the fence in the reader seems odd, but
maybe that's just me.

Thanks

Sent from my phone
On Mar 8, 2013 10:03 AM, "Lindenmaier, Goetz" <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>
wrote:

>  Hi Vitaly,****
>
> ** **
>
> No, the problem is not reordering.  The problem is that ****
>
> _bottom, which is read after _age, might be older than _age because****
>
> another processor didn’t write it back yet.  The fence (sync) makes the***
> *
>
> current thread wait until it has the new _bottom.****
>
> On Power, a write is not visible to all other threads simultaneously****
>
> (no multipl-copy-atomicity).****
>
> ** **
>
> What you propose helps if you look at two processors, but not if ****
>
> four threads on four processors are involved.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
>   Goetz.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Vitaly Davidovich [mailto:vitalyd at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Freitag, 8. März 2013 15:29
> *To:* Lindenmaier, Goetz
> *Cc:* David Holmes; hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net; John Cuthbertson;
> Simonis, Volker
> *Subject:* RE: RFR(M): Memory ordering in taskqueue.hpp****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Goetz,****
>
> If I understand correctly the problem is that bottom is loaded before age
> via compiler or arch reordering.  But why is a full fence needed? Is it not
> sufficient to have just a load fence to load age and relaxed load (just
> compiler barrier) for bottom?****
>
> Thanks****
>
> Sent from my phone****
>
> On Mar 8, 2013 9:06 AM, "Lindenmaier, Goetz" <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi,
>
> we have been, and still are, doing research on this issue.
> We want to keep you up to date on this, and propose on the
> further proceeding.
>
> You asked explicit memory ordering operations and a rationale
> why we added them.
>
> Axel found a paper describing the task queue algorithm and the
> needed ordering on arm and power:
> Correct and Efficient Work-Stealing for Weak Memory Models;
> Lê, Pop, Cohen, Nardelli; PPoPP'13;
> http://www.di.ens.fr/~zappa/readings/ppopp13.pdf
>
> According to this paper we need to add one fence and one load_acquire
> to your implementation of the task queue.  You find this fence in this
> small
> webrev:  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8006971-2/
>
> With this fence, the algorithm works on Linux for our openjdk ppc
> port, and also for our SAP JVM .
>
> Actually, the fence fixes a problem we discovered with the concurrency
> torture test suite.  The problem occurs with four or more GC threads.
> If three threads are stealing from the queue of the fourth, two of
> them can pop the same element. Without a fence between the access
> to age and bottom in pop_global(), bottom can be older than age.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the OpenJDK implementation with the added fence
> does not work on AIX.  Axel already detected one place where the xlC
> compiler optimization removed load instruction that is required for
> the correctness of the algorithm.  If we use our access routines with
> load_acquire
> (see original webrev below) everything works, unclear why.
>
> Now, we think C++ might allow that this load is removed and xlC does
> the correct, but unexpected thing.  On the other hand it might also be
> a compiler bug.
> We are currently discussing this with the IBM xlC developers.
>
> Best regards,
>   Axel and Goetz.
>
>
> PS: The webrev we proposed originally:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/webrev-taskqueue/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>