Re: [PATCH 3/3] arch: Introduce smp_load_acquire(), smp_store_release()

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 05:23:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> A number of situations currently require the heavyweight smp_mb(),
> even though there is no need to order prior stores against later
> loads.  Many architectures have much cheaper ways to handle these
> situations, but the Linux kernel currently has no portable way
> to make use of them.
> 
> This commit therefore supplies smp_load_acquire() and
> smp_store_release() to remedy this situation.  The new
> smp_load_acquire() primitive orders the specified load against
> any subsequent reads or writes, while the new smp_store_release()
> primitive orders the specifed store against any prior reads or
> writes.  These primitives allow array-based circular FIFOs to be
> implemented without an smp_mb(), and also allow a theoretical
> hole in rcu_assign_pointer() to be closed at no additional
> expense on most architectures.
> 
> In addition, the RCU experience transitioning from explicit
> smp_read_barrier_depends() and smp_wmb() to rcu_dereference()
> and rcu_assign_pointer(), respectively resulted in substantial
> improvements in readability.  It therefore seems likely that
> replacing other explicit barriers with smp_load_acquire() and
> smp_store_release() will provide similar benefits.  It appears
> that roughly half of the explicit barriers in core kernel code
> might be so replaced.
> 
> [Changelog by PaulMck]

As noted a few times in another thread, powerpc's smp_store_release()
needs to use smp_mb() rather than __lwsync(), like this:

#define smp_store_release(p, v)						\
do {									\
	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);				\
	smp_mb();							\
	ACCESS_ONCE(*p) = (v);						\
} while (0)

Would you like to make this change, or should I send another patch?

							Thanx, Paul