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 S964902AbcIFRmG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:42:06 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60688 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S933062AbcIFRmF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:42:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 18:42:10 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Question on smp_mb__before_spinlock
Message-ID: <20160906174209.GB29382@arm.com>
References: <20160905093753.GN10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160905101021.GC2649@arm.com>
 <20160906111753.GA10121@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160906111753.GA10121@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:17:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> 
> > > The second issue I wondered about is spinlock transitivity. All except
> > > powerpc have RCsc locks, and since Power already does a full mb, would
> > > it not make sense to put it _after_ the spin_lock(), which would provide
> > > the same guarantee, but also upgrades the section to RCsc.
> > > 
> > > That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one
> > > another.
> > 
> > It would also match the way in which the arm64 atomic_*_return ops
> > are implemented, since full barrier semantics are required there.
> 
> Hmm, are you sure; the way I read arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic_ll_sc.h
> is that you do ll/sc-rel + mb.

Yes, all I meant was that we put the full barrier at the end, but the
two things are indeed different sequences.

Will