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 S933853AbcIALvs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:51:48 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:48492 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933830AbcIALvp (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:51:45 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:51:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, 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: <20160901115134.GS10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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/1.5.23.1 (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:

> >So for both power and arm64, you can in fact model spin_unlock_wait()
> >as LOCK+UNLOCK.

> Is this consensus?

Dunno, but it was done to fix your earlier locking scheme and both
architectures where it matters have done so.

So I suppose that could be taken as consensus ;-)

> If I understand it right, the rules are:
> 1. spin_unlock_wait() must behave like spin_lock();spin_unlock();

>>From a barrier perspective, yes I think so. Ideally the implementation
would avoid stores (which was the entire point of introducing that
primitive IIRC) if at all possible (not possible on ARM64/Power).

> 2. spin_is_locked() must behave like spin_trylock() ? spin_unlock(),TRUE :
> FALSE

Not sure on this one, That might be consistent, but I don't see the
ll/sc-nop in there. Will?

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

I think we can state that ACQUIRE on _any_ atomic only applies to the
LOAD not the STORE.

And we're waiting for that to bite us again before trying to deal with
it in a more generic manner; for now only the spinlock implementations
(specifically spin_unlock_wait) deal with it.


Will, Boqun, did I get that right?