From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755577AbbJ1Kjo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:39:44 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33216 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752051AbbJ1Kjn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 06:39:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:39:37 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Q: schedule() and implied barriers on arm64
Message-ID: <20151028103815.GA29512@arm.com>
References: <20151016151830.GZ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151016160422.GQ3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151016161608.GA3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHkRjk7z-bbTx0PyzMP0zqWxmQ4G7RrxydKQgrcigsnQEb0RBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151016190648.GC3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151019070604.GA17855@gmail.com>
 <20151019152108.GC11226@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20151019162423.GP3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151027161948.GE20208@arm.com>
 <20151027184020.GB3201@worktop.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151027184020.GB3201@worktop.amr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 07:40:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:19:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > ... and the 'normal' code will have a control hazard somewhere, followed
> > by the implicit ISB in exception return, so there's a barrier of sorts
> > there too.
> 
> Which exception return?

The return to userspace after the interrupt/fault/system call that got us
into the kernel.

> > The problem is that people say "full barrier" without defining what it
> > really means, and we end up going round the houses on things like
> > transitivity (which ctrl + isb doesn't always give you).
> 
> I pretty much meant smp_mb() here :-)

In which case, we don't provide the transitivity guarantees that you would
get from an smp_mb().

Will