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 S1754655AbcIALTP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:19:15 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:55626 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751966AbcIALTO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:19:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 12:19:15 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 1vier1@web.de,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] spinlock: Document memory barrier rules
Message-ID: <20160901111915.GB6721@arm.com>
References: <1472385376-8801-2-git-send-email-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <20160829104815.GI10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <968e4c62-4486-a6aa-8fdf-67ff9b05a330@colorfullife.com>
 <20160829134424.GS10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <4859166f-ff39-e998-638b-6bf6912422a3@colorfullife.com>
 <20160831154049.GY10121@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160831164020.GG29505@arm.com>
 <80de24e3-fa01-a6d6-99e9-afd1e831e07b@colorfullife.com>
 <20160901084435.GN10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <3f7c39e5-4c46-0641-d29e-36c9439ad6dc@colorfullife.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3f7c39e5-4c46-0641-d29e-36c9439ad6dc@colorfullife.com>
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 Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:04:26PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> If I understand it right, the rules are:
> 1. spin_unlock_wait() must behave like spin_lock();spin_unlock();
> 2. spin_is_locked() must behave like spin_trylock() ? spin_unlock(),TRUE :
> FALSE

I don't think spin_is_locked is as strong as all that. On arm64 and ppc,
it's just smp_mb(); followed by a check on the lock value. It can't be
used for the same sorts of inter-CPU synchronisation that spin_unlock_wait
provides.

> 3. the ACQUIRE during spin_lock applies to the lock load, not to the store.

Correct. This is already documented for things like cmpxchg.

> sem.c and nf_conntrack.c need only rule 1 now, but I would document the rest
> as well, ok?
> 
> I'll update the patches.

Please CC me!

Will