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 S1754374AbcKQQ60 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:58:26 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56044 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753121AbcKQQ5V (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:57:21 -0500
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:08:36 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, elena.reshetova@intel.com, arnd@arndb.de,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, dave@progbits.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] kref: Implement using refcount_t
Message-ID: <20161117120836.GE22855@arm.com>
References: <20161114173946.501528675@infradead.org>
 <20161114174446.832175072@infradead.org>
 <20161115123337.GD12110@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
 <20161115130154.GX3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161115141909.GJ27541@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
 <20161117092800.GD3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161117092800.GD3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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 Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:28:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:19:09PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > But as I said, we actually only need the pairing of orderings:
> > 
> > 1) load part of cmpxchg -> free() 
> > 2) object accesses -> store part of cmpxchg
> > 
> > Ordering #1 can be achieved via control dependency as you pointed out
> > that free()s very much includes stores. And ordering #2 can be achieved
> > with RELEASE.
> > 
> > So the code is right, I just thought the comment may be misleading. The
> > reason we use cmpxchg_release() is just for achieving ordering #2, and
> > not to order "prior loads and stores" with "a subsequent free".
> > 
> > Am I missing some subtle orderings here?
> 
> I would want to further quality 1), it must be no earlier than the load
> of the last / successful ll/sc round.
> 
> At that point we're guaranteed a reference count of 1 that _will_ drop
> to 0, and thus nobody else (should) reference that memory anymore.
> 
> If we agree on this, I'll update the comment :-) Will, do you too agree?

All sounds reasonable to me. It's worth pointing out that you can't create
order using a control dependency hanging off the status flag of a
store-conditional, but the code in question here has the dependency from
the loaded value, which is sufficient.

Will