From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com (mailapp01.imgtec.com [195.59.15.196]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A32C1A0036 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:24:40 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <56981212.7050301@imgtec.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:24:34 -0800 From: Leonid Yegoshin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , , "Arnd Bergmann" , , Andrew Cooper , Russell King - ARM Linux , , Stefano Stabellini , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Joe Perches , David Miller , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Ralf Baechle" , Ingo Molnar , , , Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h References: <20160112102555.GV6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160112104012.GW6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160112114111.GB15737@arm.com> <569565DA.2010903@imgtec.com> <20160113104516.GE25458@arm.com> <56969F4B.7070001@imgtec.com> <20160113204844.GV6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5696BA6E.4070508@imgtec.com> <20160114120445.GB15828@arm.com> <56980145.5030901@imgtec.com> <20160114204827.GE3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20160114204827.GE3818@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/14/2016 12:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > So SYNC_RMB is intended to implement smp_rmb(), correct? Yes. > > You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to implement read_barrier_depends() and > smp_read_barrier_depends(), but SYNC_RMB probably does not suffice. If smp_read_barrier_depends() is used to separate not only two reads but read pointer and WRITE basing on that pointer (example below) - yes. I just doesn't see any example of this in famous Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and had no chance to know what you use it in this way too. > The reason for this is that smp_read_barrier_depends() must order the > pointer load against any subsequent read or write through a dereference > of that pointer. I can't see that requirement anywhere in Documents directory. I mean - the words "write through a dereference of that pointer" or similar for smp_read_barrier_depends. > For example: > > p = READ_ONCE(gp); > smp_rmb(); > r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_rmb(). */ > p->b = 42; /* NOT ordered by smp_rmb(), BUG!!! */ > r2 = x; /* ordered by smp_rmb(), but doesn't need to be. */ > > In contrast: > > p = READ_ONCE(gp); > smp_read_barrier_depends(); > r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */ > p->b = 42; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */ > r2 = x; /* not ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(), which is OK. */ > > Again, if your hardware maintains local ordering for address > and data dependencies, you can have read_barrier_depends() and > smp_read_barrier_depends() be no-ops like they are for most > architectures. It is not so simple, I mean "local ordering for address and data dependencies". Local ordering is NOT enough. It happens that current MIPS R6 doesn't require in your example smp_read_barrier_depends() but in discussion it comes out that it may not. Because without smp_read_barrier_depends() your example can be a part of Will's WRC+addr+addr and we found some design which easily can bump into this test. And that design actually performs "local ordering for address and data dependencies" too. - Leonid.