From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and update documentation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 16:53:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151007145344.GJ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151007132317.GK16065@arm.com>
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 02:23:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the headache ;)
Most welcome :-)
> > Does we want to go revert 12d560f4ea87 ("rcu,locking: Privatize
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()") for that same reason?
>
> I don't think we want a straight revert. smp_mb__after_unlock_lock could
> largely die if PPC strengthened its locks, whereas smp_mb__release_acquire
> is needed by quite a few architectures.
Fair enough, lets wait for the benchmark results from the PPC people
doing that.
> > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt is updated to describe more clearly
> > > the ACQUIRE and RELEASE ordering in this area and to show an example of
> > > the new barrier in action.
> >
> > The only nit I have is that if we revert the above it might be make
> > sense to more clearly call out the distinction between the two.
>
> Right. Where I think we'd like to get to is:
>
> - RELEASE -> ACQUIRE acts as a full barrier if they operate on the same
> variable and the ACQUIRE reads from the RELEASE
>
> - RELEASE -> ACQUIRE acts as a full barrier if they execute on the same
> CPU and are interleaved with an smp_mb__release_acquire barrier.
>
> - RELEASE -> ACQUIRE ordering is transitive
>
> [only the transitivity part is missing in this patch, because I lost
> track of that discussion]
>
> We could then use these same guarantees for UNLOCK -> LOCK in RCU,
> defining smp_mb__after_unlock_lock to be the same as
> smp_mb__release_acquire, but only applying to UNLOCK -> LOCK. That's a
> slight relaxation of how it's defined at the moment (and I guess would
> need some work on PPC?), but it keeps things consistent which is
> especially important as core locking primitives are ported over to the
> ACQUIRE/RELEASE primitives.
>
> Thoughts?
/me like, although I'm too tired to see how those 3 rules combine to
something weaker than the current after_unlock_lock thing for PPC.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-07 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-07 10:59 [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and update documentation Will Deacon
2015-10-07 11:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-07 13:23 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-07 13:23 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-07 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-10-07 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-08 3:50 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-10-08 3:50 ` Michael Ellerman
2015-10-08 11:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-08 12:59 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-08 22:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-09 9:51 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-09 9:51 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-09 11:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 11:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 17:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-09 17:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-09 17:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-09 18:33 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-12 23:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-20 14:20 ` Boqun Feng
2015-10-08 21:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-09 7:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 9:40 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-09 9:40 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-09 11:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 12:41 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-09 11:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 12:51 ` Will Deacon
2015-10-09 13:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 11:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-09 17:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-19 1:17 ` Boqun Feng
2015-10-19 1:17 ` Boqun Feng
2015-10-19 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-19 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-20 7:35 ` Boqun Feng
2015-10-20 7:35 ` Boqun Feng
2015-10-20 23:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-21 8:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-21 19:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-21 19:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-21 19:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-10-21 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-10-21 16:04 ` David Laight
2015-10-21 16:04 ` David Laight
2015-10-21 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151007145344.GJ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).