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 S966146AbcA1Afk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:35:40 -0500
Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:42672 "EHLO
	e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S965780AbcA1Afh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:35:37 -0500
X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com
X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:38:36 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>,
        David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mans@mansr.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock()
Message-ID: <20160127233836.GQ4503@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20151112123123.GZ17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5644D08D.4080206@caviumnetworks.com>
 <yw1xvb97krvu.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
 <5644D7B5.6020009@caviumnetworks.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1601200131240.5958@tp.orcam.me.uk>
 <20160127114348.GF2390@arm.com>
 <20160127145421.GT6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160127152158.GJ2390@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160127152158.GJ2390@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 16012800-0025-0000-0000-000020CF6D23
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:21:58PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:54:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:43:48AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Do you know whether a SYNC 18 (RELEASE) followed in program order by a
> > > SYNC 17 (ACQUIRE) creates a full barrier (i.e. something like SYNC 16)?
> > > 
> > > If not, you may need to implement smp_mb__after_unlock_lock for RCU
> > > to ensure globally transitive unlock->lock ordering should you decide
> > > to relax your locking barriers.
> > 
> > You know that is a tricky question. Maybe its easier if you give the 3
> > cpu litmus test that goes with it.
> 
> Sure, I was building up to that. I just wanted to make sure the basics
> were there (program-order, so same CPU) before we go any further. It
> sounds like they are, so that's promising.
> 
> > Maciej, the tricky point is what, if any, effect the
> > SYNC_RELEASE+SYNC_ACQUIRE pair has on an unrelated CPU. Please review
> > the TRANSITIVITY section in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and
> > replace <general barrier> with the RELEASE+ACQUIRE pair.
> > 
> > We've all (Will, Paul and me) had much 'fun' trying to decipher the
> > MIPS64r6 manual but failed to reach a conclusion on this.
> 
> For the inter-thread case, Paul had a previous example along the lines
> of:
> 
> 
> Wx=1
> WyRel=1
> 
> RyAcq=1
> Rz=0
> 
> Wz=1
> smp_mb()
> Rx=0

Each paragraph being a separate thread, correct?  If so, agreed.

> and I suppose a variant of that:
> 
> 
> Wx=1
> WyRel=1
> 
> RyAcq=1
> Wz=1
> 
> Rz=1
> <address dependency>
> Rx=0

Agreed, this would be needed as well, along with the read-read and
read-write variants.  I picked the write-read version (Will's first
test above) because write-read reordering is the most likely on
hardware that I am aware of.

							Thanx, Paul