Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:18:14 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <michaele@au1.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove
 smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
Message-ID: <20150715141814.GZ3717@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <1436789704-10086-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <1436826689.3948.233.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
 <1436929578.10956.3.camel@ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1436929578.10956.3.camel@ellerman.id.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3063
Lines: 72

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:18PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 08:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 13:15 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is used to promote an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence
> > > into a full memory barrier.
> > > 
> > > However:
> > > 
> > >   - This ordering guarantee is already provided without the barrier on
> > >     all architectures apart from PowerPC
> > > 
> > >   - The barrier only applies to UNLOCK + LOCK, not general
> > >     RELEASE + ACQUIRE operations
> > > 
> > >   - Locks are generally assumed to offer SC ordering semantics, so
> > >     having this additional barrier is error-prone and complicates the
> > >     callers of LOCK/UNLOCK primitives
> > > 
> > >   - The barrier is not well used outside of RCU and, because it was
> > >     retrofitted into the kernel, it's not clear whether other areas of
> > >     the kernel are incorrectly relying on UNLOCK + LOCK implying a full
> > >     barrier
> > > 
> > > This patch removes the barrier and instead requires architectures to
> > > provide full barrier semantics for an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> > > Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > This didn't go anywhere last time I posted it, but here it is again.
> > > I'd really appreciate some feedback from the PowerPC guys, especially as
> > > to whether this change requires them to add an additional barrier in
> > > arch_spin_unlock and what the cost of that would be.
> > 
> > We'd have to turn the lwsync in unlock or the isync in lock into a full
> > barrier. As it is, we *almost* have a full barrier semantic, but not
> > quite, as in things can get mixed up inside spin_lock between the LL and
> > the SC (things leaking in past LL and things leaking "out" up before SC
> > and then getting mixed up in there).
> > 
> > Michael, at some point you were experimenting a bit with that and tried
> > to get some perf numbers of the impact that would have, did that
> > solidify ? Otherwise, I'll have a look when I'm back next week.
> 
> I was mainly experimenting with replacing the lwsync in lock with an isync.
> 
> But I think you're talking about making it a full sync in lock.
> 
> That was about +7% on p8, +25% on p7 and +88% on p6.

Just for completeness, what were you running as benchmark?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> We got stuck deciding whether isync was safe to use as a memory barrier,
> because the wording in the arch is a bit vague.
> 
> But if we're talking about a full sync then I think there is no question that's
> OK and we should just do it.
> 
> cheers
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/