Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 15:03 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-16 at 12:00 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > That would fix the problem with smp_mb__after_unlock_lock(), but not
> > the original worry we had about loads happening before the SC in lock.
> 
> However I think isync fixes *that* :-) The problem with isync is as you
> said, it's not a -memory- barrier per-se, it's an execution barrier /
> context synchronizing instruction. The combination stwcx. + bne + isync
> however prevents the execution of anything past the isync until the
> stwcx has completed and the bne has been "decided", which prevents loads
> from leaking into the LL/SC loop. It will also prevent a store in the
> lock from being issued before the stwcx. has completed. It does *not*
> prevent as far as I can tell another unrelated store before the lock
> from leaking into the lock, including the one used to unlock a different
> lock.

Except that the architecture says:

<<
Because a Store Conditional instruction may com-
plete before its store has been performed, a condi-
tional Branch instruction that depends on the CR0
value set by a Store Conditional instruction does
not order the Store Conditional's store with respect
to storage accesses caused by instructions that
follow the Branch
>>

So isync in lock in architecturally incorrect, despite being what the
architecture recommends using, yay !

Ben.