Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store_mb()

[Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 06:33:56AM +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Note that this might affect callers that could/would rely on the
>> > atomicity semantics, but there are no guarantees of that for
>> > smp_store_mb() mentioned anywhere, plus most archs use this anyway.
>> > Thus we continue to be consistent with the memory-barriers.txt file,
>> > and more importantly, maintain the semantics of the smp_ nature.
>>
>
>> So with this patch, the whole thing becomes pointless, I feel. (Ok, so
>> it may have been pointless before too, but at least before this patch
>> it generated special code, now it doesn't). So why carry it along at
>> all?
>
>So I suppose this boils down to if: XCHG ends up being cheaper than
>MOV+FENCE.

If so, could this be the reasoning behind the mix and match of xchg and
MOV+FENCE? for different archs? This is from the days when set_mb() was
introduced. I wonder if it still even matters... I at least haven't seen
much difference in general workloads (I guess any difference would be
neglictible for practical matters). But could obviously be missing something.

>PeterA, any idea?

I suppose you're referring to hpa, Cc'ing him.