From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756115AbbJUTgp (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:36:45 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:46435 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752198AbbJUTgm (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:36:42 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;stable@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:36:38 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Boqun Feng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , Waiman Long , Davidlohr Bueso , stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/locking/core v4 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg a full barrier Message-ID: <20151021193638.GU5105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1444838161-17209-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <1444838161-17209-2-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <20151014201916.GB3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20151020071532.GB17714@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20151020092147.GX17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20151020212835.GH5105@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20151021081833.GB2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151021081833.GB2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15102119-0009-0000-0000-00000F1F60B0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:18:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:28:35PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > I am not seeing a sync there, but I really have to defer to the > > maintainers on this one. I could easily have missed one. > > So x86 implies a full barrier for everything that changes the CPL; and > some form of implied ordering seems a must if you change the privilege > level unless you tag every single load/store with the priv level at that > time, which seems the more expensive option. And it is entirely possible that there is some similar operation somewhere in the powerpc entry/exit code. I would not trust myself to recognize it, though. > So I suspect the typical implementation will flush all load/stores, > change the effective priv level and continue. > > This can of course be implemented at a pure per CPU ordering (RCpc), > which would be in line with the rest of Power, in which case you do > indeed need an explicit sync to make it visible to other CPUs. > > But yes, if Michael or Ben could clarify this it would be good. > > Back then I talked to Ralf about what MIPS says on this, and MIPS arch > spec is entirely quiet on this, it allows implementations full freedom > IIRC. :-) ;-) ;-) > Thanx, Paul