Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:57:55 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        bobby.prani@gmail.com, dvyukov@google.com, will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Add smp_mb__after_atomic() to
 sync_exp_work_done()
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20170412165441.GA17149@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1492016149-18834-7-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170413091832.phnfppqjjy6sislo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170413161042.GA3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170413162409.q5gsqfytjyirgfep@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170413162409.q5gsqfytjyirgfep@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20170413165755.GJ3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1417
Lines: 31

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:24:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 09:10:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:18:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:55:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > However, a little future-proofing is a good thing,
> > > > especially given that smp_mb__before_atomic() is only required to
> > > > provide acquire semantics rather than full ordering.  This commit
> > > > therefore adds smp_mb__after_atomic() after the atomic_long_inc()
> > > > in sync_exp_work_done().
> > > 
> > > Oh!? As far as I'm away the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() really must
> > > provide full MB, no confusion about that.
> > > 
> > > We have other primitives for acquire/release.
> > 
> > Hmmm...  Rechecking atomic_ops.txt, it does appear that you are quite
> > correct.  Adding Will and Dmitry on CC, but dropping this patch for now.
> 
> I'm afraid that document is woefully out dated. I'm surprised it says
> anything on the subject.

And there is some difference of opinion.  Some believe that the
smp_mb__before_atomic() only guarantees acquire and smp_mb__after_atomic()
only guarantees release, but all current architectures provide full
ordering, as you noted and as stated in atomic_ops.txt.

How do we decide?

Once we do decide, atomic_ops.txt of course needs to be updated accordingly.

							Thanx, Paul