Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:33:39 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 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, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant
 read_barrier_depends()
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20171201195053.GA23494@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1512157876-24665-21-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20171205202928-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20171205183946.GP3165@worktop.lehotels.local>
 <20171205204928-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20171205191733.GQ3165@worktop.lehotels.local>
 <20171205212053-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171205212053-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20171205193339.GP7829@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1577
Lines: 47

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:24:21PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:17:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:57:46PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't see WRITE_ONCE inserting any barriers, release or
> > > write.
> > 
> > Correct, never claimed there was.
> > 
> > Just saying that:
> > 
> > 	obj = READ_ONCE(*foo);
> > 	val = READ_ONCE(obj->val);
> > 
> > Never needs a barrier (except on Alpha and we want to make that go
> > away). Simply because a CPU needs to complete the load of @obj before it
> > can compute the address &obj->val. Thus the second load _must_ come
> > after the first load and we get LOAD-LOAD ordering.
> > 
> > Alpha messing that up is a royal pain, and Alpha not being an
> > active/living architecture is just not worth the pain of keeping this in
> > the generic model.
> > 
> 
> Right. What I am saying is that for writes you need
> 
> WRITE_ONCE(obj->val, 1);
> smp_wmb();
> WRITE_ONCE(*foo, obj);

I believe Peter was instead suggesting:

WRITE_ONCE(obj->val, 1);
smp_store_release(foo, obj);

> and this barrier is no longer paired with anything until
> you realize there's a dependency barrier within READ_ONCE.
> 
> Barrier pairing was a useful tool to check code validity,
> maybe there are other, better tools now.

There are quite a few people who say that smp_store_release() is
easier for the tools to analyze than is smp_wmb().  My experience with
smp_read_barrier_depends() and rcu_dereference() leads me to believe
that they are correct.

							Thanx, Paul