From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:46:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20160115174612.GV3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <569565DA.2010903@imgtec.com> <20160113104516.GE25458@arm.com> <5696CF08.8080700@imgtec.com> <20160114121449.GC15828@arm.com> <5697F6D2.60409@imgtec.com> <20160114203430.GC3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56980C91.1010403@imgtec.com> <20160114212913.GF3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160115085554.GF3421@worktop> <20160115091348.GA27936@worktop> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160115091348.GA27936@worktop> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Will Deacon , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Russell King - ARM Linux , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman , x86@kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, james.hogan@imgtec.com, Arnd Bergmann , Stefano Stabellini , adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Leonid Yegoshin , ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, Thomas Gleixner , linux-metag@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > > > and smp_read_acquire(), > > > > But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all > > the confusion lays. > > > > smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. > > > > Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two cpus > > involved in the handover will agree on the order. > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they > interact. Hoping my memory-barrier.txt patch helps here... > And smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() are RCpc because TSO archs > and PPC. the atomic*_{acquire,release}() are RCpc because PPC and > LOCK,UNLOCK are similarly RCpc because of PPC. > > Now we'd like PPC to stick a SYNC in either LOCK or UNLOCK so at least > the locks are RCsc again, but they resist for performance reasons but > waver because they don't want to be the ones finding all the nasty bugs > because they're the only one. I believe that the relevant proverb said something about starving to death between two bales of hay... ;-) > Now the thing I worry about, and still have not had an answer to is if > weakly ordered MIPS will end up being RCsc or RCpc for their locks if > they get implemented with SYNC_ACQUIRE and SYNC_RELEASE instead of the > current SYNC. It would be good to have better clarity on this, no two ways about it. Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:55467 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755241AbcAORx2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:53:28 -0500 Received: from localhost by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:53:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:46:12 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h Message-ID: <20160115174612.GV3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <569565DA.2010903@imgtec.com> <20160113104516.GE25458@arm.com> <5696CF08.8080700@imgtec.com> <20160114121449.GC15828@arm.com> <5697F6D2.60409@imgtec.com> <20160114203430.GC3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56980C91.1010403@imgtec.com> <20160114212913.GF3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160115085554.GF3421@worktop> <20160115091348.GA27936@worktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160115091348.GA27936@worktop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Leonid Yegoshin , Will Deacon , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Cooper , Russell King - ARM Linux , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Stefano Stabellini , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Joe Perches , David Miller , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, x86@kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ralf Baechle , Ingo Molnar , ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, james.hogan@imgtec.com, Michael Ellerman Message-ID: <20160115174612.X7fIvO0jJqGYfiW8Kh-kyb0X_A5lUrdrFR3QgECNAGs@z> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > > > and smp_read_acquire(), > > > > But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all > > the confusion lays. > > > > smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. > > > > Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two cpus > > involved in the handover will agree on the order. > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they > interact. Hoping my memory-barrier.txt patch helps here... > And smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() are RCpc because TSO archs > and PPC. the atomic*_{acquire,release}() are RCpc because PPC and > LOCK,UNLOCK are similarly RCpc because of PPC. > > Now we'd like PPC to stick a SYNC in either LOCK or UNLOCK so at least > the locks are RCsc again, but they resist for performance reasons but > waver because they don't want to be the ones finding all the nasty bugs > because they're the only one. I believe that the relevant proverb said something about starving to death between two bales of hay... ;-) > Now the thing I worry about, and still have not had an answer to is if > weakly ordered MIPS will end up being RCsc or RCpc for their locks if > they get implemented with SYNC_ACQUIRE and SYNC_RELEASE instead of the > current SYNC. It would be good to have better clarity on this, no two ways about it. Thanx, Paul