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 S1752731AbbLKNsI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:48:08 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:47004 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751741AbbLKNsH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:48:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:48:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <andrew.pinski@caviumnetworks.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        david.daney@cavium.com
Subject: Re: FW: Commit 81a43adae3b9 (locking/mutex: Use acquire/release
 semantics) causing failures on arm64 (ThunderX)
Message-ID: <20151211134803.GP6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <5669D5F2.5050004@caviumnetworks.com>
 <SN1PR07MB21577C72379C8440A208D6BC9EEA0@SN1PR07MB2157.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+=Sn1miWYhH5ddMmLGYWknzcw3d1k4S6QyK9O_ofdJKJDQxmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+=Sn1n6e9pLDRVWT1EzDEn2XWwoK-Ep__-R6VVPzhbMvCEdNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151211084133.GE6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151211120419.GD18828@arm.com>
 <20151211121319.GK6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151211121759.GE18828@arm.com>
 <20151211122647.GM6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151211133313.GG18828@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151211133313.GG18828@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:33:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > While we're there, the acquire in osq_wait_next() seems somewhat ill
> > documented too.
> > 
> > I _think_ we need ACQUIRE semantics there because we want to strictly
> > order the lock-unqueue A,B,C steps and we get that with:
> > 
> >  A: SC
> >  B: ACQ
> >  C: Relaxed
> > 
> > Similarly for unlock we want the WRITE_ONCE to happen after
> > osq_wait_next, but in that case we can even rely on the control
> > dependency there.
> 
> Even for the lock-unqueue case, isn't B->C ordered by a control dependency
> because C consists only of stores?

Hmm, indeed. So we could go fully relaxed on it I suppose, since the
same is true for the unlock site.