From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@imgtec.com>
Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:36:50 -0800
Message-ID: <569814F2.50801@imgtec.com>
References: <20160112102555.GV6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160112104012.GW6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20160112114111.GB15737@arm.com> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160114212913.GF3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
List-Archive: <https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, x86@kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, james.hogan@imgtec.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, ddaney.cavm@gmail.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-metag@vger.kernel.orglinux-a
List-ID: <linux-s390.vger.kernel.org>

On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> On 01/14/2016 12:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>
>>> The WRC+addr+addr is OK because data dependencies are not required to be
>>> transitive, in other words, they are not required to flow from one CPU to
>>> another without the help of an explicit memory barrier.
>> I don't see any reliable way to fit WRC+addr+addr into "DATA
>> DEPENDENCY BARRIERS" section recommendation to have data dependency
>> barrier between read of a shared pointer/index and read the shared
>> data based on that pointer. If you have this two reads, it doesn't
>> matter the rest of scenario, you should put the dependency barrier
>> in code anyway. If you don't do it in WRC+addr+addr scenario then
>> after years it can be easily changed to different scenario which
>> fits some of scenario in "DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS" section and
>> fails.
> The trick is that lockless_dereference() contains an
> smp_read_barrier_depends():
>
> #define lockless_dereference(p) \
> ({ \
> 	typeof(p) _________p1 = READ_ONCE(p); \
> 	smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Dependency order vs. p above. */ \
> 	(_________p1); \
> })
>
> Or am I missing your point?

WRC+addr+addr has no any barrier. lockless_dereference() has a barrier. 
I don't see a common points between this and that in your answer, sorry.

- Leonid.