lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 06:50:29PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:54:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > However I think we should look at the insides of the critical sections;
> > for example (from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt):
> >
> > " *A = a;
> > RELEASE M
> > ACQUIRE N
> > *B = b;
> >
> > could occur as:
> >
> > ACQUIRE N, STORE *B, STORE *A, RELEASE M"
> >
> > This could not in fact happen, even though we could flip M and N, A and
> > B will remain strongly ordered.
> >
> > That said, I don't think this could even happen on PPC because we have
> > load_acquire and store_release, this means that:
> >
> > *A = a
> > lwsync
> > store_release M
> > load_acquire N
> > lwsync
> > *B = b
> >
> > And since the store to M is wrapped inside two lwsync there must be
> > strong store order, and because the load from N is equally wrapped in
> > two lwsyncs there must also be strong load order.
> >
> > In fact, no store/load can cross from before the first lwsync to after
> > the latter and the other way around.
> >
> > So in that respect it does provide full load-store ordering. What it
> > does not provide is order for M and N, nor does it provide transitivity,
> > but looking at our documentation I'm not at all sure we guarantee that
> > in any case.
>
> So if I'm following along, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock *does* provide
> transitivity when used with UNLOCK + LOCK, which is stronger than your
> example here.

Yes, that is indeed the intent.

> I don't think we want to make the same guarantee for general RELEASE +
> ACQUIRE, because we'd end up forcing most architectures to implement the
> expensive macro for a case that currently has no users.

Agreed, smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() makes a limited guarantee.

> In which case, it boils down to the question of how expensive it would
> be to implement an SC UNLOCK operation on PowerPC and whether that justifies
> the existence of a complicated barrier macro that isn't used outside of
> RCU.

Given that it is either smp_mb() or nothing, I am not seeing the
"complicated" part...

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-13 22:41    [W:0.120 / U:2.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site