Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 07/18] qemu-thread: add simple test-and-set spinlock

["Emilio G. Cota" <cota@braap.org>]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 23:35:57 +0300, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 17/05/16 22:38, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 20:13:24 +0300, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> >> On 14/05/16 06:34, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> (snip)
> >>> +        while (atomic_read(&spin->value)) {
> >>> +            cpu_relax();
> >>> +        }
> >>> +    }
> >> Looks like relaxed atomic access can be a subject to various
> >> optimisations according to
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/AtomicSync#Relaxed.
> > The important thing here is that the read actually happens
> > on every iteration; this is achieved with atomic_read().
> > Barriers etc. do not matter here because once we exit
> > the loop, the try to acquire the lock -- and if we succeed,
> > we then emit the right barrier.
> 
> I just can't find where it is stated that an expression like
> "__atomic_load(ptr, &_val, __ATOMIC_RELAXED)" has a _compiler_ barrier
> or volatile access semantic. Hopefully, cpu_relax() serves as a compiler
> barrier. If we rely on that, we'd better put a comment about it.

I treat atomic_read/set as ACCESS_ONCE[1], i.e. volatile cast.
>From docs/atomics.txt:

  COMPARISON WITH LINUX KERNEL MEMORY BARRIERS
  ============================================
  [...]
  - atomic_read and atomic_set in Linux give no guarantee at all;
    atomic_read and atomic_set in QEMU include a compiler barrier
    (similar to the ACCESS_ONCE macro in Linux).

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/508991/

		Emilio