Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751836AbdHAJBe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:01:34 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:55760 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751623AbdHAJBc (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 1 Aug 2017 05:01:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:01:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3]: documentation,atomic: Add new documents
Message-ID: <20170801090121.edo7mekhw3sann4h@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170609092450.jwmldgtli57ozxgq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170609154442.GB9236@arm.com>
 <20170609193604.ncw3hhgvewzc3h5u@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170611135632.sl72klbeklelupej@tardis>
 <20170612144929.3wiwtbqopsfpm3qk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170726115328.2sxiitivlnlq64dk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170726124750.vktrn5zi2gmpzfru@tardis>
 <20170731090535.rjgnoewqg7mhzr55@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170731110403.ou3zqsp3uviqorkz@tardis>
 <20170731174345.GL3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170731174345.GL3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 865
Lines: 29

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:43:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Why wouldn't the following have ACQUIRE semantics?
> 
> 	atomic_inc(&var);
> 	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 
> Is the issue that there is no actual value returned or some such?

Yes, so that the inc is a load-store, and thus there is a load, we loose
the value.

But I see your point I think. Irrespective of still having the value,
the ordering is preserved and nothing should pass across that.

> So if I have something like this, the assertion really can trigger?
> 
> 	WRITE_ONCE(x, 1);		atomic_inc(&y);
> 	r0 = xchg_release(&y, 5);	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 					r1 = READ_ONCE(x);
> 
> 
> 	WARN_ON(r0 == 0 && r1 == 0);
> 
> I must confess that I am not seeing why we would want to allow this
> outcome.

No you are indeed quite right. I just wasn't creative enough. Thanks for
the inspiration.