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 S1752843AbeC1LIX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:08:23 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:54374 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752259AbeC1LIW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:08:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:08:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.17 2/2] powerpc: Remove smp_mb() from
 arch_spin_is_locked()
Message-ID: <20180328110809.GE4129@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1522060667-7034-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <1522109216.7364.30.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <20180327102521.GA7347@andrea>
 <87a7us3h66.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <20180328110436.GR4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180328110436.GR4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 01:04:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:25:37PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Documenting it would definitely be good, but even then I'd be inclined
> > to leave the barrier in our implementation. Matching the documented
> > behaviour is one thing, but the actual real-world behaviour on well
> > tested platforms (ie. x86) is more important.
> 
> By that argument you should switch your spinlock implementation to RCpc
> and include that SYNC in either lock or unlock already ;-)

*RCsc* obviously... clearly I need to wake up moar.

> Ideally we'd completely eradicate the *_is_locked() crud from the
> kernel, not sure how feasable that really is, but it's a good goal. At
> that point the whole issue of the barrier becomes moot of course.