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 S964958AbcBBRNG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:13:06 -0500
Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:53000 "EHLO
	e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933207AbcBBRND (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:13:03 -0500
X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com
X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 09:12:37 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>,
        David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mans@mansr.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mips: Fix arch_spin_unlock()
Message-ID: <20160202171237.GL6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20160128095718.GC30928@arm.com>
 <20160128223131.GV4503@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160129095958.GA4541@arm.com>
 <20160129102253.GG4503@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160201135621.GD6828@arm.com>
 <20160202035458.GF6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160202051904.GC1239@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20160202114559.GA10166@arm.com>
 <20160202121230.GE1239@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com>
 <20160202122025.GB10166@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160202122025.GB10166@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 16020217-0013-0000-0000-00001C77B2CE
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 12:20:25PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:12:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:45:59AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 01:19:04PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 07:54:58PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:56:22PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 02:22:53AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:59:59AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > Locally transitive chain termination:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (i.e. these can't be used to extend a chain)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > o	smp_store_release() -> lockless_dereference() (???)
> > > > > > > o	rcu_assign_pointer() -> rcu_dereference()
> > > > > > > o	smp_store_release() -> READ_ONCE(); if
> > > > 
> > > > Just want to make sure, this one is actually:
> > > > 
> > > > o	smp_store_release() -> READ_ONCE(); if ;<WRITE_ONCE()>
> > > > 
> > > > right? Because control dependency only orders READ->WRITE.
> > > > 
> > > > If so, do we also need to take the following pairing into consideration?
> > > > 
> > > > o	smp_store_release() -> READ_ONCE(); if ;smp_rmb(); <ACCESS_ONCE()>
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am OK with the first and last, but I believe that the middle one
> > > > > has real use cases.  So the rcu_assign_pointer() -> rcu_dereference()
> > > > > case needs to be locally transitive.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm... I don't think we should differ rcu_dereference() and
> > > > lockless_dereference(). One reason: list_for_each_entry_rcu() are using
> > > > lockless_dereference() right now, which means we used to think
> > > > rcu_dereference() and lockless_dereference() are interchangeable, right?
> > > > 
> > > > Besides, Will, what's the reason of having a locally transitive chain
> > > > termination? Because on some architectures RELEASE->DEPENDENCY pairs may
> > > > not be locally transitive?
> > > 
> > > Well, the following ISA2 test is permitted on ARM:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > P0:
> > > Wx=1
> > > WyRel=1	// rcu_assign_pointer
> > > 
> > > P1:
> > > Ry=1	// rcu_dereference
> > 
> > What if a <addr> dependency is added here? Same result?
> 
> Right, that fixes it. So if we're only considering things like:
> 
>   rcu_dereference
>   <addr>
>   RELEASE
> 
> then local transitivity should be preserved.

Whew!!!  ;-)

> I think the same applies to <ctrl>, which seems to match your later
> example.

Could you please check?

							Thanx, Paul