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 S1754576AbcDVQxP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:53:15 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:36016 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753878AbcDVQxO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:53:14 -0400
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:53:11 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        waiman.long@hpe.com, mingo@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, dave@stgolabs.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking,arm64: Introduce cmpwait()
Message-ID: <20160422165310.GN10289@arm.com>
References: <20160404122250.340636238@infradead.org>
 <20160404123633.484451002@infradead.org>
 <20160412165941.GG26124@arm.com>
 <20160422160857.GA3369@insomnia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160422160857.GA3369@insomnia>
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 Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:08:57AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:59:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> [...]
> > > +static inline void __cmpwait(volatile void *ptr, unsigned long val, int size)
> > > +{
> > > +	switch (size) {
> > > +	case 1: return __cmpwait_case_1(ptr, val);
> > > +	case 2: return __cmpwait_case_2(ptr, val);
> > > +	case 4: return __cmpwait_case_4(ptr, val);
> > > +	case 8: return __cmpwait_case_8(ptr, val);
> > > +	default: BUILD_BUG();
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	unreachable();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#define cmpwait(ptr, val) \
> > > +	__cmpwait((ptr), (unsigned long)(val), sizeof(*(ptr)))
> > 
> > We might want to call this cmpwait_relaxed, in case we decide to add
> > fenced versions in the future. Or just make it cmpwait_acquire and
> > remove the smp_rmb() from smp_cond_load_acquire(). Dunno.
> > 
> 
> How about replace smp_rmb() with a smp_acquire_barrier__after_cmpwait()?
> This barrier is designed to provide an ACQUIRE ordering when combining a
> cmpwait() .
> 
> And cmpwait() only has minimal ordering guarantee, but if it is actually
> an ACQUIRE, then the corresponding smp_acquire_barrier__after_cmpwait()
> is just empty.

Maybe, but that makes it difficult for me to use a load-acquire instruction
for the ACQUIRE case.

Will