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 S933181AbcIELev (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 5 Sep 2016 07:34:51 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:58542 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932209AbcIELer (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 5 Sep 2016 07:34:47 -0400
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 13:34:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Question on smp_mb__before_spinlock
Message-ID: <20160905113435.GZ10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160905093753.GN10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160905103714.GZ3663@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160905103714.GZ3663@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (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 Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:37:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > So recently I've had two separate issues that touched upon
> > smp_mb__before_spinlock().
> > 
> > 
> > Since its inception, our understanding of ACQUIRE, esp. as applied to
> > spinlocks, has changed somewhat. Also, I wonder if, with a simple
> > change, we cannot make it provide more.
> > 
> > The problem with the comment is that the STORE done by spin_lock isn't
> > itself ordered by the ACQUIRE, and therefore a later LOAD can pass over
> > it and cross with any prior STORE, rendering the default WMB
> > insufficient (pointed out by Alan).
> > 
> > Now, this is only really a problem on PowerPC and ARM64, the former of
> > which already defined smp_mb__before_spinlock() as a smp_mb(), the
> > latter does not, Will?
> > 
> > The second issue I wondered about is spinlock transitivity. All except
> > powerpc have RCsc locks, and since Power already does a full mb, would
> > it not make sense to put it _after_ the spin_lock(), which would provide
> > the same guarantee, but also upgrades the section to RCsc.
> > 
> > That would make all schedule() calls fully transitive against one
> > another.
> > 
> > 
> > That is, would something like the below make sense?
> 
> Looks to me like you have reinvented smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()...

Will said the same, but that one doesn't in fact do the first bit, as
ARM64 also needs a full barrier for that, while it doesn't need that to
upgrade to RCsc.