lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
From
Date
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 00:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > This is instead the sequence that is of concern:
> >
> > store a
> > unlock M
> > lock N
> > load b
>
> So its late and that table didn't parse, but that should be ordered too.
> The load of b should not be able to escape the lock N.
>
> If only because LWSYNC is a valid RMB and any LOCK implementation must
> load the lock state to observe it unlocked.

What happens is that the load passes the store conditional, though it
doesn't pass the load with reserve. However, both store A and unlock M
being just stores with an lwsync, can pass a load, so they can pass the
load with reserve. And thus inside the LL/SC loop, our store A has
passed our load B.

> > > Additionally, the assertion in Documentation/memory_barriers.txt that
> > > the sequence above can be reordered as
> > >
> > > LOCK N
> > > store b
> > > store a
> > > UNLOCK M
> > >
> > > is not true on any existing arch in Linux.
> >
> > It was at one time and might be again.
>
> What would be required to make this true? I'm having a hard time seeing
> how things can get reordered like that.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-14 01:01    [W:0.167 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site