From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757559AbcAMTCp (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:02:45 -0500 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:60325 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753835AbcAMTCl (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:02:41 -0500 Message-ID: <56969F4B.7070001@imgtec.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:02:35 -0800 From: Leonid Yegoshin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Will Deacon CC: Peter Zijlstra , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , , Arnd Bergmann , , Andrew Cooper , Russell King - ARM Linux , , Stefano Stabellini , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Joe Perches , David Miller , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Ralf Baechle" , Ingo Molnar , , , Michael Ellerman , Paul McKenney Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h References: <1452426622-4471-12-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <56945366.2090504@imgtec.com> <20160112092711.GP6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160112102555.GV6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160112104012.GW6373@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160112114111.GB15737@arm.com> <569565DA.2010903@imgtec.com> <20160113104516.GE25458@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20160113104516.GE25458@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.20.3.92] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/13/2016 02:45 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:45:14PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: >> > I don't think the address dependency is enough on its own. By that > reasoning, the following variant (WRC+addr+addr) would work too: > > > P0: > Wx = 1 > > P1: > Rx == 1 >
> Wy = 1 > > P2: > Ry == 1 >
> Rx = 0 > > > So are you saying that this is also forbidden? > Imagine that P0 and P1 are two threads that share a store buffer. What > then? > I ask HW team about it but I have a question - has it any relationship with replacing MIPS SYNC with lightweight SYNCs (SYNC_WMB etc)? You use any barrier or do not use it and I just voice an intention to use a more efficient instruction instead of bold hummer (SYNC instruction). If you don't use any barrier here then it is a different issue. May be it has sense to return back to original issue? - Leonid