Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 1 Feb 2018 14:53:29 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: asm-generic: Disallow no-op mb() for SMP systems
Message-ID: <20180201135329.GB2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180131130034.GR2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180131131737.GA5097@arm.com>
 <20180131132610.GT2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180201122750.GE30895@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
 <20180201132909.GW2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180201133229.GB9182@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180201133229.GB9182@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 01:32:30PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:29:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:27:50PM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > > I tried to clarify some of this in the spec v1.2 [0] which help formalize some of
> > > the techniques we used for the SMP implementation.  Its probably not perfect,
> > > but I added a section "10. Multicore support" and tried to clarify some things
> > > in section 7 on Atomicity.  But it seems I dont cover exactly what are are
> > > mentioning here.  In general:
> > > 
> > >   1 Secondary cores have memory snooping enabled meaning that any write to a
> > >     cached address will cause the cache line to be invalidated.
> > >   2 l.swa (store atomic word) implies a store buffer flush.
> > 
> > What about l.lwa? Can that observe 'old' values, or rather, miss values
> > stuck in a remote store buffer?
> > 
> > This will then cause the first l.swa to fail, which, per the above,
> > would then sync things up? Which means you get that one extra
> > merry-go-round.
> 
> That's ok from a correctness perspective, though, as long as store buffers
> are guaranteed to drain.

Depends a bit if you can build control dependencies off of l.swa
succeding or not I think :-) Otherwise you get into that dodgy state you
suffer from where bits can leak right through.

That is, I was thinking what we need for smp_mb__before_atomic.

I could've gotten my brain in a twist or course, which isn't _that_
unusual. I never seem to be able to quite remember the holes you have
with ll/sc on arm64 :-)