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:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:24:27 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <albert@sifive.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] riscv/locking: Strengthen spin_lock() and
 spin_unlock()
Message-ID: <20180226162426.GB17158@arm.com>
References: <1519301990-11766-1-git-send-email-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <20180222134004.GN25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180222141249.GA14033@andrea>
 <82beae6a-2589-6136-b563-3946d7c4fc60@nvidia.com>
 <20180222181317.GI2855@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180222182717.GS25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <563431d0-4fb5-9efd-c393-83cc5197e934@nvidia.com>
 <20180226142107.uid5vtv5r7zbso33@yquem.inria.fr>
 <CA+55aFwu5jat5vV-d6RVaUFo=Bjeyv-7eXWUJySg6xFUTnfbWQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwu5jat5vV-d6RVaUFo=Bjeyv-7eXWUJySg6xFUTnfbWQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 08:06:59AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > That is, locks are not implemented from more basic primitive but are specified.
> > The specification can be described as behaving that way:
> >   - A lock behaves as a read-modify-write. the read behaving as a read-acquire
> 
> This is wrong, or perhaps just misleading.
> 
> The *whole* r-m-w acts as an acquire. Not just the read part. The
> write is very much part of it.
> 
> Maybe that's what you meant, but it read to me as "just the read part
> of the rmw behaves as a read-acquire".
> 
> Because it is very important that the _write_ part of the rmw is also
> ordered wrt everything that is inside the spinlock.
> 
> So doing a spinlock as
> 
>  (a) read-locked-acquire
>    modify
>  (c) write-conditional
> 
> would be wrong, because the accesses inside the spinlock are ordered
> not just wrt the read-acquire, they have to be ordered wrt the write
> too.
> 
> So it is closer to say that it's the _write_ of the r-m-w sequence
> that has the acquire semantics, not the read.

Strictly speaking, that's not what we've got implemented on arm64: only
the read part of the RmW has Acquire semantics, but there is a total
order on the lock/unlock operations for the lock. For example, if one
CPU does:

spin_lock(&lock);
WRITE_ONCE(foo, 42);

then another CPU could do:

if (smp_load_acquire(&foo) == 42)
	BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock));

and that could fire. Is that relied on somewhere?

Will