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 S1754090AbbKRLZX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:25:23 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34012 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750987AbbKRLZV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:25:21 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:25:14 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
Message-ID: <20151118112514.GC1588@arm.com>
References: <20151111121232.GN17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151111193953.GA23515@redhat.com>
 <20151112070915.GC6314@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <CA+55aFxr4JX8XEF12qCOjbj1r92w8yuHZ0vbUm9jgvY167Svsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151116155658.GW17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151116160445.GK11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151116162452.GD1999@arm.com>
 <CA+55aFyvMBgi2GYpPPe8dMho2+TdSwUg1h-4JNZ_hQse_WqfKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151117115109.GD28649@arm.com>
 <20151117210109.GY5184@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151117210109.GY5184@linux.vnet.ibm.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 Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:01:09PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:51:10AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 01:58:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ... or we upgrade spin_unlock_wait to a LOCK operation, which might be
> > > > slightly cheaper than spin_lock()+spin_unlock().
> > > 
> > > So traditionally the real concern has been the cacheline ping-pong
> > > part of spin_unlock_wait(). I think adding a memory barrier (that
> > > doesn't force any exclusive states, just ordering) to it is fine, but
> > > I don't think we want to necessarily have it have to get the cacheline
> > > into exclusive state.
> > 
> > The problem is, I don't think the memory-barrier buys you anything in
> > the context of Boqun's example. In fact, he already had smp_mb() either
> > side of the spin_unlock_wait() and its still broken on arm64 and ppc.
> > 
> > Paul is proposing adding a memory barrier after spin_lock() in the racing
> > thread, but I personally think people will forget to add that.
> 
> A mechanical check would certainly make me feel better about it, so that
> any lock that was passed to spin_unlock_wait() was required to have all
> acquisitions followed by smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or some such.
> But I haven't yet given up on finding a better solution.

Right-o. I'll hack together the arm64 spin_unlock_wait fix, but hold off
merging it for a few weeks in case we get struck by a sudden flash of
inspiration.

Will