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 S1757160AbcH2Kwk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:52:40 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:39634 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1756515AbcH2Kwj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:52:39 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:52:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 1vier1@web.de,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] qspinlock for x86: smp_mb__after_spin_lock() is free
Message-ID: <20160829105232.GK10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1472385376-8801-1-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <1472385376-8801-2-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <1472385376-8801-3-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <1472385376-8801-4-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <1472385376-8801-5-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1472385376-8801-5-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (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 Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 01:56:16PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> For x86 qspinlocks, no additional memory barrier is required in
> smp_mb__after_spin_lock:
> 
> Theoretically, for qspinlock we could define two barriers:
> - smp_mb__after_spin_lock: Free for x86, not free for powerpc
> - smp_mb__between_spin_lock_and_spin_unlock_wait():
> 	Free for all archs, see queued_spin_unlock_wait for details.
> 
> As smp_mb__between_spin_lock_and_spin_unlock_wait() is not used
> in any hotpaths, the patch does not create that define yet.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> index eaba080..da06433 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> @@ -61,6 +61,17 @@ static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  }
>  #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>  
> +#ifndef smp_mb__after_spin_lock
> +/**
> + * smp_mb__after_spin_lock() - Provide smp_mb() after spin_lock
> + *
> + * queued_spin_lock() provides full memory barriers semantics,
> + * thus no further memory barrier is required. See
> + * queued_spin_unlock_wait() for further details.
> + */
> +#define smp_mb__after_spin_lock()	barrier()
> +#endif


I don't get this barrier, and I from my understanding this isn't
correct.

Please explain more.