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 S1753509AbbEHOWA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 8 May 2015 10:22:00 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:53137 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751353AbbEHOV7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 8 May 2015 10:21:59 -0400
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 15:21:56 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about barriers for ARM on tools/perf/
Message-ID: <20150508142156.GB25587@arm.com>
References: <20150508140459.GI7862@kernel.org>
 <20150508141620.GK27504@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150508141620.GK27504@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:16:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 11:04:59AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Hi Will,
> > 
> > 	I am working on moving the stuff we have for mb/rmb/wmb from
> > tools/perf/perf-sys.h to tools/include/asm/barrier.h, redirecting
> > to tools/arch/$ARCH/include/asm/barrier.h, to make it look like the
> > kernel and who knows, at some point even share the source code.
> > 
> > 	For now I am getting just what is needed for work on having
> > atomic.h done in the same fashion, to implement refcounts for various
> > perf data structures, starting with struct thread, for which I have
> > a patch that makes perf survive in high core count machines where it
> > currently crashes, most nobably 'perf top'.
> > 
> > 	While doing that I noticed that arm64 implementation, lastly
> > fixed in:
> > 
> >   f428ebd184c82a7914b2aa7e9f868918aaf7ea78
> >   perf tools: Fix AAAAARGH64 memory barriers
> > 
> > By peterz, it implements those barriers as:
> > 
> > #define mb()            asm volatile("dmb ish" ::: "memory")
> > #define wmb()           asm volatile("dmb ishst" ::: "memory")
> > #define rmb()           asm volatile("dmb ishld" ::: "memory")
> > 
> > Which are not the same as in the kernel, i.e. in
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h, where the above are really smp_mb,
> > smp_wmb and smp_rmb.
> > 
> > Would it be enough for us to use the same implementation as the kernel?
> > I.e. make it be:
> > 
> > #define mb()            asm volatile("dsb sy" ::: "memory")
> > #define wmb()           asm volatile("dsb st" ::: "memory")
> > #define rmb()           asm volatile("dsb ld" ::: "memory")
> > 
> > ? If so I would then use those dsb/dmb macros, etc, to get tools/ to use
> > the proper instructions, etc.
> > 
> > I need now, for arm64, smp_mb, that is used by atomic_sub_return(), that
> > in turn is used by atomic_dec_and_test(), that I need for refcounts.
> > 
> > Can you clarify?
> 
> The dmb things include a fence for IO, the dsb are only for between
> CPUs.
> 
> So for your work the dsb are fine.

Other way around ;)

(I relied separately anyway)

Will