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 S1754652AbbKBShF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:37:05 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:52241 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753964AbbKBShC (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:37:02 -0500
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:37:00 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Message-ID: <20151102183659.GN29657@arm.com>
References: <20151102132901.157178466@infradead.org>
 <20151102134941.005198372@infradead.org>
 <CA+55aFwMREaiVSZhTt3HB+Qrgj1pA5p9P6q8WD-dSa7=rHYPmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwMREaiVSZhTt3HB+Qrgj1pA5p9P6q8WD-dSa7=rHYPmQ@mail.gmail.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 Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:08:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond) do {            \
> > +       while (!(cond))                         \
> > +               cpu_relax();                    \
> > +       smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* ctrl */  \
> > +       smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */  \
> > +} while (0)
> 
> This code makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> smp_read_barrier_depends() is about a memory barrier where there is a
> data dependency between two accesses. The "depends" is very much about
> the data dependency, and very much about *nothing* else.

Paul wasn't so sure, which I think is why smp_read_barrier_depends()
is already used in, for example, READ_ONCE_CTRL:

  http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151007154003.GJ3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com

although I agree that this would pave the way for speculative stores on
Alpha and that seems like a heavy accusation to make.

> Your comment talks about control dependencies, but
> smp_read_barrier_depends() has absolutely nothing to do with a control
> dependency. In fact, it is explicitly a no-op on architectures like
> ARM and PowerPC that violate control dependencies.

In this case, control dependencies are only referring to READ -> WRITE
ordering, so they are honoured by ARM and PowerPC.

Will