On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:15:36PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 05:42:15PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 11/28/2011 06:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > - unsigned int ret = bar->generation & ~3;
> > > - /* Do we need any barrier here or is __sync_add_and_fetch acting
> > > - as the needed LoadLoad barrier already? */
> > > - ret += __sync_add_and_fetch (&bar->awaited, -1) == 0;
> > > + unsigned int ret = __atomic_load_4 (&bar->generation,
> > > MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE) & ~3;
> > > + ret += __atomic_add_fetch (&bar->awaited, -1, MEMMODEL_ACQ_REL) == 0;
> >
> > Given that the read from bar->generation is ACQ, we don't need a duplicate
> > barrier from the REL on the atomic add. I believe both can be
> > MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE
> > both in order to force the ordering of these two memops, as well as force
> > these
> > to happen before anything subsequent.
>
> I tried with MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE and ran force-parallel-6.exe, the test
> that seems most sensitive to barrier problems, many times, and it hangs
> occasionally in futex_wait called via gomp_team_barrier_wait_end.
>
> I believe that threads can't be allowed to exit from
> gomp_{,team_}barrier_wait without hitting a release barrier, and
> perhaps from gomp_barrier_wait_last too. gomp_barrier_wait_start is a
> convenient point to insert the barrier, and a minimal change from the
> old code using __sync_add_and_fetch. I can add a comment. ;-)
Committed rev 181833.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
