Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752039AbdIANYX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:24:23 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:19677 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750955AbdIANYW (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:24:22 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,458,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="130717224" From: "Reshetova, Elena" To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Thomas Gleixner , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" , "tj@kernel.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "lizefan@huawei.com" , "acme@kernel.org" , "alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com" , "eparis@redhat.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "luto@kernel.org" , "keescook@chromium.org" , "dvhart@infradead.org" , "ebiederm@xmission.com" Subject: RE: [PATCH 14/15] futex: convert futex_pi_state.refcount to refcount_t Thread-Topic: [PATCH 14/15] futex: convert futex_pi_state.refcount to refcount_t Thread-Index: AQHTIYrzZIHADGwHSEu0EVkr0E9TAqKflyIAgAAhQgCAAAFJAIAAI4yQgAADB+CAAAkkgIAAGdsA Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:24:16 +0000 Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF63506@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1504095773-22895-1-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com> <1504095773-22895-15-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com> <20170901093852.it4d4bxoy2lmojrk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF6347F@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170901123415.s3fxlyeyourz47av@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20170901123415.s3fxlyeyourz47av@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.0.116 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 926 Lines: 17 > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:05:33AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > Actually on the second thought: does the above memory ordering differences > > really apply when we have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT? To me it looks like the way > > how it is currently implemented for x86 is the same way as it is for atomic cases. > > Never look to x86 for memory ordering, its boring. > > And yes, for the ARM implementation it can certainly make a difference. So, yes, what I am trying to say is that it can really depend if you have ARCH_HAS_REFCOUNT enabled or not and then also based on architecture. Thus I believe is also true for atomic: there might be differences when you use arch. dependent version of function or not. So, I guess if I rewrite the commits, I should only include the statement on relaxed memory order for REFCOUNT_FULL and tell that arch. specific implementations may vary on their properties (as they do now).