From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:46:12 -0800
Subject: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
In-Reply-To: <20160115091348.GA27936@worktop>
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>
Message-ID: <20160115174612.GV3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.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