Message-ID: <55A7BABE.2070507@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:07:58 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with
 _Q_SLOW_VAL
References: <1436926417-20256-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1436926417-20256-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <20150715091012.GG2859@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <55A6F84F.5050502@hp.com> <20150716054214.GU19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150716054214.GU19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1646
Lines: 40

On 07/16/2015 01:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:18:23PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 07/15/2015 05:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>   	/*
>>> +	 * A failed cmpxchg doesn't provide any memory-ordering guarantees,
>>> +	 * so we need a barrier to order the read of the node data in
>>> +	 * pv_unhash *after* we've read the lock being _Q_SLOW_VAL.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * Matches the cmpxchg() in pv_wait_head() setting _Q_SLOW_VAL.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	smp_rmb();
>> According to memory_barriers.txt, cmpxchg() is a full memory barrier. It
>> didn't say a failed cmpxchg will lose its memory guarantee. So is the
>> documentation right?
> The documentation is not entirely clear on this; but there are hints
> that this is so.
>
>> Or is that true for some architectures? I think it is
>> not true for x86.
> On x86 LOCK CMPXCHG is always a sync point, but yes there are archs for
> which a failed cmpxchg does _NOT_ provide any barrier semantics.
>
> The reason I started looking was because Will made Argh64 one of those.

That is what I suspected. In that case, I am fine with the patch as 
smp_rmb() is an nop in x86 anyway.

Acked-by:  Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>

BTW, I think we also need to update the documentation to make it clear 
that a failed cmpxchg() or atomic_cmpxchg() may not be a full memory 
barrier as most people may not be aware of that.

Cheers,
Longman
--
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/