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 S1753606Ab3KCRJQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 3 Nov 2013 12:09:16 -0500
Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:65121 "EHLO
	cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752501Ab3KCRJP (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 3 Nov 2013 12:09:15 -0500
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 17:07:59 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Victor Kaplansky <VICTORK@il.ibm.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PPC dev <li@mx0.arm.com>
Subject: Re: perf events ring buffer memory barrier on powerpc
Message-ID: <20131103170759.GC6871@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <OFB9096CCA.68AAFFFB-ON42257C12.0044F107-42257C12.00457129@il.ibm.com>
 <20131028132634.GO19466@laptop.lan>
 <20131028163418.GD4126@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131028201735.GA15629@redhat.com>
 <20131103144017.GA25118@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131103144017.GA25118@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 02:40:17PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 10:32:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:56:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:40:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > Now the whole crux of the question is if we need barrier A at all, since
> > > > > the STORES issued by the @buf writes are dependent on the ubuf->tail
> > > > > read.
> > > > 
> > > > The dependency you are talking about is via the "if" statement?
> > > > Even C/C++11 is not required to respect control dependencies.
> > > > 
> > > > This one is a bit annoying.  The x86 TSO means that you really only
> > > > need barrier(), ARM (recent ARM, anyway) and Power could use a weaker
> > > > barrier, and so on -- but smp_mb() emits a full barrier.
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps a new smp_tmb() for TSO semantics, where reads are ordered
> > > > before reads, writes before writes, and reads before writes, but not
> > > > writes before reads?  Another approach would be to define a per-arch
> > > > barrier for this particular case.
> > > 
> > > I suppose we can only introduce new barrier primitives if there's more
> > > than 1 use-case.

Which barrier did you have in mind when you refer to `recent ARM' above? It
seems to me like you'd need a combination if dmb ishld and dmb ishst, since
the former doesn't order writes before writes.

Will