llvm dev - Feb 2016 - Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition

Hello!

A proposal (quaintly identified as P0190R0) for a new memory_order_consume
definition may be found here:

	http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/consume.2016.02.10b.pdf

As requested at the October C++ Standards Committee meeting, this
is a follow-on to P0098R1 that picks one alternative and describes
it in detail.  This approach focuses on existing practice, with the
goal of supporting existing code with existing compilers.  In the last
clang/LLVM patch I saw for basic support of this change, you could count
the changed lines and still have lots of fingers and toes left over.
Those who have been following this story will recognize that this is
a very happy contrast to work that would be required to implement the
definition in the current standard.

I expect that P0190R0 will be discussed at the upcoming C++ Standards
Committee meeting taking place the week of February 29th.  Points of
discussion are likely to include:

o	May memory_order_consume dependency ordering be used in
	unannotated code?  I believe that this must be the case,
	especially given that this is our experience base.  P0190R0
	therefore recommends this approach.

o	If memory_order_consume dependency ordering can be used in
	unannotated code, must implementations support annotation?
	I believe that annotation support should be required, at the very
	least for formal verification, which can be quite difficult to
	carry out on unannotated code.  In addition, it seems likely
	that annotations can enable much better diagnostics.  P0190R0
	therefore recommends this approach.

o	If implementations must support annotation, what form should that
	annotation take?  P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]]
	attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied
	to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well
	as C++.  ;-)

o	If memory_order_consume dependency ordering can be used in
	unannotated code, how best to define the situations where
	the compiler can determine the exact value of the pointer in
	question?  (In current defacto implementations, this can
	defeat dependency ordering.  Interestingly enough, this case
	is not present in the Linux kernel, but still needs to be
	defined.)

	Options include:
	
	o	Provide new intrinsics that carry out the
		comparisons, but guarantee to preserve dependencies,
		as recommended by P0190R0 (std::pointer_cmp_eq_dep(),
		std::pointer_cmp_ne_dep(), std::pointer_cmp_gt_dep(),
		std::pointer_cmp_ge_dep(), std::pointer_cmp_lt_dep(),
		and std::pointer_cmp_le_dep()).

	o	State that -any- comparison involving an unannotated
		pointer loses the dependency.

o	How is the common idiom of marking pointers by setting low-order
	bits to be supported when those pointers carry dependencies?
	At the moment, I believe that setting bits in pointers results in
	undefined behavior even without dependency ordering, so P0190R0
	kicks this particular can down the road.  One option that
	has been suggested is to provide intrinsics for this purpose.
	(Sorry, but I forget who suggested this.)

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

There's at least one easy answer in there:
> ‎If implementations must support annotation, what form should that
	annotation take?  P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]]
	attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied
	to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well
	as C++.  ;-)

If an implementation must support it, then it is not an annotation but a
keyword. So no [[]] 



Sent from my BlackBerry portable Babbage Device
  Original Message  
From: Paul E. McKenney
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:58 AM
To: parallel at lists.isocpp.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-arch at
vger.kernel.org; gcc at gcc.gnu.org; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Reply To: parallel at lists.isocpp.org
Cc: peterz at infradead.org; j.alglave at ucl.ac.uk; will.deacon at arm.com;
dhowells at redhat.com; Ramana.Radhakrishnan at arm.com; luc.maranget at
inria.fr; akpm at linux-foundation.org; Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk; torvalds
at linux-foundation.org; mingo at kernel.org
Subject: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition

Hello!

A proposal (quaintly identified as P0190R0) for a new memory_order_consume
definition may be found here:

http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/consume.2016.02.10b.pdf

As requested at the October C++ Standards Committee meeting, this
is a follow-on to P0098R1 that picks one alternative and describes
it in detail. This approach focuses on existing practice, with the
goal of supporting existing code with existing compilers. In the last
clang/LLVM patch I saw for basic support of this change, you could count
the changed lines and still have lots of fingers and toes left over.
Those who have been following this story will recognize that this is
a very happy contrast to work that would be required to implement the
definition in the current standard.

I expect that P0190R0 will be discussed at the upcoming C++ Standards
Committee meeting taking place the week of February 29th. Points of
discussion are likely to include:

o	May memory_order_consume dependency ordering be used in
unannotated code? I believe that this must be the case,
especially given that this is our experience base. P0190R0
therefore recommends this approach.

o	If memory_order_consume dependency ordering can be used in
unannotated code, must implementations support annotation?
I believe that annotation support should be required, at the very
least for formal verification, which can be quite difficult to
carry out on unannotated code. In addition, it seems likely
that annotations can enable much better diagnostics. P0190R0
therefore recommends this approach.

o	If implementations must support annotation, what form should that
annotation take? P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]]
attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied
to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well
as C++. ;-)

o	If memory_order_consume dependency ordering can be used in
unannotated code, how best to define the situations where
the compiler can determine the exact value of the pointer in
question? (In current defacto implementations, this can
defeat dependency ordering. Interestingly enough, this case
is not present in the Linux kernel, but still needs to be
defined.)

Options include:

o	Provide new intrinsics that carry out the
comparisons, but guarantee to preserve dependencies,
as recommended by P0190R0 (std::pointer_cmp_eq_dep(),
std::pointer_cmp_ne_dep(), std::pointer_cmp_gt_dep(),
std::pointer_cmp_ge_dep(), std::pointer_cmp_lt_dep(),
and std::pointer_cmp_le_dep()).

o	State that -any- comparison involving an unannotated
pointer loses the dependency.

o	How is the common idiom of marking pointers by setting low-order
bits to be supported when those pointers carry dependencies?
At the moment, I believe that setting bits in pointers results in
undefined behavior even without dependency ordering, so P0190R0
kicks this particular can down the road. One option that
has been suggested is to provide intrinsics for this purpose.
(Sorry, but I forget who suggested this.)

Thoughts?

Thanx, Paul

_______________________________________________
Parallel mailing list
Parallel at lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/parallel
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/parallel/2016/02/0040.php

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:15:16PM -0500, Tony V E
wrote:
> There's at least one easy answer in there:
> 
> > ‎If implementations must support annotation, what form should that
> 	annotation take?  P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]]
> 	attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied
> 	to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well
> 	as C++.  ;-)
> 
> If an implementation must support it, then it is not an annotation but a
keyword. So no [[]] 
I would be good with that approach, especially if the WG14 continues
to stay away from annotations.

For whatever it is worth, the introduction of intrinsics for comparisons
that avoid breaking dependencies enables the annotation to remain
optional.

							Thanx, Paul
> Sent from my BlackBerry portable Babbage Device
>   Original Message  
> From: Paul E. McKenney
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:58 AM
> To: parallel at lists.isocpp.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
linux-arch at vger.kernel.org; gcc at gcc.gnu.org; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Reply To: parallel at lists.isocpp.org
> Cc: peterz at infradead.org; j.alglave at ucl.ac.uk; will.deacon at
arm.com; dhowells at redhat.com; Ramana.Radhakrishnan at arm.com; luc.maranget
at inria.fr; akpm at linux-foundation.org; Peter.Sewell at cl.cam.ac.uk;
torvalds at linux-foundation.org; mingo at kernel.org
> Subject: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition
> 
> Hello!
> 
> A proposal (quaintly identified as P0190R0) for a new memory_order_consume
> definition may be found here:
> 
> http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/consume.2016.02.10b.pdf
> 
> As requested at the October C++ Standards Committee meeting, this
> is a follow-on to P0098R1 that picks one alternative and describes
> it in detail. This approach focuses on existing practice, with the
> goal of supporting existing code with existing compilers. In the last
> clang/LLVM patch I saw for basic support of this change, you could count
> the changed lines and still have lots of fingers and toes left over.
> Those who have been following this story will recognize that this is
> a very happy contrast to work that would be required to implement the
> definition in the current standard.
> 
> I expect that P0190R0 will be discussed at the upcoming C++ Standards
> Committee meeting taking place the week of February 29th. Points of
> discussion are likely to include:
> 
> o	May memory_order_consume dependency ordering be used in
> unannotated code? I believe that this must be the case,
> especially given that this is our experience base. P0190R0
> therefore recommends this approach.
> 
> o	If memory_order_consume dependency ordering can be used in
> unannotated code, must implementations support annotation?
> I believe that annotation support should be required, at the very
> least for formal verification, which can be quite difficult to
> carry out on unannotated code. In addition, it seems likely
> that annotations can enable much better diagnostics. P0190R0
> therefore recommends this approach.
> 
> o	If implementations must support annotation, what form should that
> annotation take? P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]]
> attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied
> to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well
> as C++. ;-)
> 
> o	If memory_order_consume dependency ordering can be used in
> unannotated code, how best to define the situations where
> the compiler can determine the exact value of the pointer in
> question? (In current defacto implementations, this can
> defeat dependency ordering. Interestingly enough, this case
> is not present in the Linux kernel, but still needs to be
> defined.)
> 
> Options include:
> 
> o	Provide new intrinsics that carry out the
> comparisons, but guarantee to preserve dependencies,
> as recommended by P0190R0 (std::pointer_cmp_eq_dep(),
> std::pointer_cmp_ne_dep(), std::pointer_cmp_gt_dep(),
> std::pointer_cmp_ge_dep(), std::pointer_cmp_lt_dep(),
> and std::pointer_cmp_le_dep()).
> 
> o	State that -any- comparison involving an unannotated
> pointer loses the dependency.
> 
> o	How is the common idiom of marking pointers by setting low-order
> bits to be supported when those pointers carry dependencies?
> At the moment, I believe that setting bits in pointers results in
> undefined behavior even without dependency ordering, so P0190R0
> kicks this particular can down the road. One option that
> has been suggested is to provide intrinsics for this purpose.
> (Sorry, but I forget who suggested this.)
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanx, Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Parallel mailing list
> Parallel at lists.isocpp.org
> Subscription: http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/parallel
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/parallel/2016/02/0040.php
> _______________________________________________
> Parallel mailing list
> Parallel at lists.isocpp.org
> Subscription: http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/parallel
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/parallel/2016/02/0045.php