RFR(M): 8029101: PPC64 (part 211): ordering of Independent Reads of Independent Writes

[David Holmes]

Okay this is my second attempt at answering this in a reasonable way :)

On 26/11/2013 10:51 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> I have to ask David to do correctness evaluation.

 From what I understand what we see here is an attempt to fix an 
existing issue with the implementation of volatiles so that the IRIW 
problem is addressed. The solution proposed for PPC64 is to make 
volatile reads extremely heavyweight by adding a fence() when doing the 
load.

Now if this was purely handled in ppc64 source code then I would be 
happy to let them do whatever they like (surely this kills performance 
though!). But I do not agree with the changes to the shared code that 
allow this solution to be implemented - even with PPC64_ONLY this is 
polluting the shared code. My concern is similar to what I said with the 
taskQueue changes - these algorithms should be expressed using the 
correct OrderAccess operations to guarantee the desired properties 
independent of architecture. If such a "barrier" is not needed on a 
given architecture then the implementation in OrderAccess should reduce 
to a no-op.

And as Vitaly points out the constructor barriers are not needed under 
the JMM.

> I am fine with suggested changes because you did not change our current
> code for our platforms (please, do not change do_exits() now).
> But may be it should be done using more general query which is set
> depending on platform:
>
> OrderAccess::needs_support_iriw_ordering()
>
> or similar to what we use now:
>
> VM_Version::needs_support_iriw_ordering()

Every platform has to support IRIW this is simply part of the Java 
Memory Model, there should not be any need to call this out explicitly 
like this.

Is there some subtlety of the hardware I am missing here? Are there 
visibility issues beyond the ordering constraints that the JMM defines?
>  From what I understand our ppc port is also affected. David?

We can not discuss that on an OpenJDK mailing list - sorry.

David
-----

> In library_call.cpp can you add {}? New comment should be inside  else {}.
>
> I think you should make _wrote_volatile field not ppc64 specific which
> will be set to 'true' only on ppc64. Then you will not need PPC64_ONLY()
> except in do_put_xxx() where it is set to true. Too many #ifdefs.
>
> In do_put_xxx() can you combine your changes:
>
>     if (is_vol) {
>       // See comment in do_get_xxx().
> #ifndef PPC64
>       insert_mem_bar(Op_MemBarVolatile); // Use fat membar
> #else
>       if (is_field) {
>         // Add MemBarRelease for constructors which write volatile field
> (PPC64).
>         set_wrote_volatile(true);
>       }
> #endif
>     }
>
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
>
> On 11/25/13 8:16 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I preprared a webrev with fixes for PPC for the VolatileIRIWTest of
>> the torture test suite:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8029101-0-raw/
>>
>> Example:
>> volatile x=0, y=0
>>    __________    __________    __________    __________
>> | Thread 0 |  | Thread 1 |  | Thread 2 |  | Thread 3 |
>>
>>     write(x=1)    read(x)       write(y=1)    read(y)
>>                   read(y)                     read(x)
>>
>> Disallowed:     x=1, y=0                    y=1, x=0
>>
>>
>> Solution: This example requires multiple-copy-atomicity. This is only
>> assured by the sync instruction and if it is executed in the threads
>> doing the loads. Thus we implement volatile read as sync-load-acquire
>> and omit the sync/MemBarVolatile after the volatile store.
>> MemBarVolatile happens to be implemented by sync.
>> We fix this in C2 and the cpp interpreter.
>>
>> This addresses a similar issue as fix "8012144: multiple SIGSEGVs
>> fails on staxf" for taskqueue.hpp.
>>
>> Further this change contains a fix that assures that volatile fields
>> written in constructors are visible before the reference gets
>> published.
>>
>>
>> Looking at the code, we found a MemBarRelease that to us, seems too
>> strong.
>> We think in parse1.cpp do_exits() a MemBarStoreStore should suffice.
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Please review and test this change.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>    Goetz.
>>