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 S1755734AbcFQPpk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:45:40 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:51391 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932315AbcFQPpg (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:45:36 -0400
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:45:36 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 1/6] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper
 acquire/release barrier
Message-ID: <20160617154536.GB1284@arm.com>
References: <1465944489-43440-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <1465944489-43440-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <20160615080446.GA28443@insomnia>
 <5761A5FF.5070703@hpe.com>
 <20160616021951.GA16918@insomnia>
 <57631BBA.9070505@hpe.com>
 <20160617004837.GB16918@insomnia>
 <576416B1.6020006@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <576416B1.6020006@hpe.com>
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 Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:26:41AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 08:48 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:35:54PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>If you look into the actual code:
> >>
> >>         next = xchg_release(&node->next, NULL);
> >>         if (next) {
> >>                 WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
> >>                 return;
> >>         }
> >>
> >>There is a control dependency that WRITE_ONCE() won't happen until
> >But a control dependency only orders LOAD->STORE pairs, right? And here
> >the control dependency orders the LOAD part of xchg_release() and the
> >WRITE_ONCE().
> >
> >Along with the fact that RELEASE only orders the STORE part of xchg with
> >the memory operations preceding the STORE part, so for the following
> >code:
> >
> >	WRTIE_ONCE(x,1);
> >	next = xchg_release(&node->next, NULL);
> >	if (next)
> >		WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
> >
> >such a reordering is allowed to happen on ARM64v8
> >
> >	next = ldxr [&node->next] // LOAD part of xchg_release()
> >
> >	if (next)
> >		WRITE_ONCE(next->locked, 1);
> >
> >	WRITE_ONCE(x,1);
> >	stlxr NULL [&node->next]  // STORE part of xchg_releae()
> >
> >Am I missing your point here?
> 
> My understanding of the release barrier is that both prior LOADs and STOREs
> can't move after the barrier. If WRITE_ONCE(x, 1) can move to below as shown
> above, it is not a real release barrier and we may need to change the
> barrier code.

You seem to be missing the point.

{READ,WRITE}_ONCE accesses appearing in program order after a release
are not externally ordered with respect to the release unless they
access the same location.

This is illustrated by Boqun's example, which shows two WRITE_ONCE
accesses being reordered before a store-release forming the write
component of an xchg_release. In both cases, WRITE_ONCE(x, 1) remains
ordered before the store-release.

Will