Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix improper uses of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()

[Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:34:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:14:56PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > A relatively common misuse of these barriers is to apply these to
> > operations which are not read-modify-write operations, such as
> > atomic_set() and atomic_read(); examples were discussed in [1].
> > 
> > This series attempts to fix those uses by (conservatively) replacing
> > the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() barriers with full memory barriers.
> 
> I don't think blindly doing this replacement makes the code any better;
> much of the code you found is just straight up dodgy to begin with.
> 
> I think the people should mostly just consider this a bug report.

Bug, misuse, patch, and rfc seem all appropriate to me in this context.


> Also, remember a memory barrier without a coherent comment is most
> likely a bug anyway.

Right.  Hopefully, the people in Cc: will want to shed some light about
this: I know what these smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() can not do, but
I can only guess (I won't!) what they are supposed to accomplish (e.g.,
which mem. accesses are being ordered, what are the matching barriers);
maybe this can also justify the "conservative" approach presented here.

  Andrea