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 S932911AbcILMyO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:54:14 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:42106 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932839AbcILMyN (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:54:13 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 14:54:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Question on smp_mb__before_spinlock
Message-ID: <20160912125403.GS10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160905093753.GN10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160907221726.37981b30@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
 <20160907132354.GR10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160912122708.71a91ea3@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160912122708.71a91ea3@roar.ozlabs.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 12, 2016 at 12:27:08PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 15:23:54 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > Interesting idea..
> > 
> > So I'm not a fan of that raw_spin_lock wrapper, since that would end up
> > with a lot more boiler-plate code than just the one extra barrier.
> 
> #ifndef sched_ctxsw_raw_spin_lock
> #define sched_ctxsw_raw_spin_lock(lock) raw_spin_lock(lock)
> #endif
> 
> #define sched_ctxsw_raw_spin_lock(lock) do { smp_mb() ; raw_spin_lock(lock); } while (0)

I was thinking you wanted to avoid the lwsync in arch_spin_lock()
entirely, at which point you'll grow more layers. Because then you get
an arch_spin_lock_mb() or something and then you'll have to do the
raw_spin_lock wrappery for that.

Or am I missing the point of having the raw_spin_lock wrapper, as
opposed to the extra barrier after it?

Afaict the benefit of having that wrapper is so you can avoid issuing
multiple barriers.

> > But moving MMIO/DMA/TLB etc.. barriers into this spinlock might not be a
> > good idea, since those are typically fairly heavy barriers, and its
> > quite common to call schedule() without ending up in switch_to().
> 
> That's true I guess, but if we already have the arch specific smp_mb__
> specifically for this context switch code, and you are asking for them to
> implement *cacheable* memory barrier vs migration, then I see no reason
> not to allow them to implement uncacheable as well.
> 
> You make a good point about schedule() without switch_to(), but
> architectures will still have no less flexibility than they do now.

Ah, so you're saying make it optional where they put it? I was initially
thinking you wanted to add it to the list of requirements. Sure,
optional works.