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 S1753301AbbKCBZe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:25:34 -0500
Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:33095 "EHLO
	mail-io0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751549AbbKCBZd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:25:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151103011406.GB29027@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20151102132901.157178466@infradead.org>
	<20151102134941.005198372@infradead.org>
	<20151102135726.GR17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<20151102174347.GK29657@arm.com>
	<20151103011406.GB29027@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:25:32 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Hubb9SaBPwkh_dGTuPjkq1eaJPE
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxii+-g_=Etsi6wXsZMJOn0eQWdZ+Kwc9hLqBCwfDBiJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire()
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        boqun.feng@gmail.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 2, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> You would ask that question when I am many thousands of miles from my
> copy of the Alpha reference manual!  ;-)

I don't think I've touched a paper manual in years. Too m uch effort
to index and search. Look here

   http://download.majix.org/dec/alpha_arch_ref.pdf

> There is explicit wording in that manual that says that no multi-variable
> ordering is implied without explicit memory-barrier instructions.

Right. But the whole "read -> conditional -> write" ends up being a
dependency chain to *every* single write that happens after the
conditional.

So there may be no "multi-variable ordering" implied in any individual
access, but despite that a simple "read + conditional" orders every
single store that comes after it. Even if it orders them
"individually".

                Linus