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 S1756224AbbJ1Tt4 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:49:56 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34831 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751182AbbJ1Ttz (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:49:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:49:43 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store_mb()
Message-ID: <20151028194943.GA20911@linux-uzut.site>
References: <1445975631-17047-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <1445975631-17047-4-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <CA+55aFw8d29E26o4eB8VgbZBC5Ot2y9K=T_yE5Dj0dFdyVgOUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151027223744.GB11242@worktop.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151027223744.GB11242@worktop.amr.corp.intel.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 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.