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, 12 Jul 2018 19:45:27 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/memory-model: Add extra ordering for locks and
 remove it for ordinary release/acquire
Message-ID: <20180712174527.GA3533@andrea>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1807091519180.2462-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20180710093821.GA5414@andrea>
 <20180711094310.GA13963@arm.com>
 <20180711123421.GA9673@andrea>
 <20180712074040.GA4920@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180712115249.GA6201@andrea>
 <20180712134821.GT2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180712134821.GT2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> Anyway, back to the problem of being able to use the memory model to
> describe locks. This is I think a useful property.
> 
> My earlier reasoning was that:
> 
>   - smp_store_release() + smp_load_acquire() := RCpc
> 
>   - we use smp_store_release() as unlock()
> 
> Therefore, if we want unlock+lock to imply at least TSO (ideally
> smp_mb()) we need lock to make up for whatever unlock lacks.
> 
> Hence my proposal to strenghten rmw-acquire, because that is the basic
> primitive used to implement lock.
> 
> But as you (and Will) point out, we don't so much care about rmw-acquire
> semantics as much as that we care about unlock+lock behaviour. Another
> way to look at this is to define:
> 
>   smp-store-release + rmw-acquire := TSO (ideally smp_mb)
> 
> But then we also have to look at:
> 
>   rmw-release + smp-load-acquire
>   rmw-release + rmw-acquire
> 
> for completeness sake, and I would suggest they result in (at least) the
> same (TSO) ordering as the one we really care about.

Indeed (unless I'm not seeing something...  ;-).


> 
> One alternative is to no longer use smp_store_release() for unlock(),
> and say define atomic_set_release() to be in the rmw-release class
> instead of being a simple smp_store_release().
> 
> Another, and I like this proposal least, is to introduce a new barrier
> to make this all work.

An smp_tso__after_unlock_lock()?  (In a certain sense, the solution
adopted by RCU aligns to this approach: live with powerpc's RCpc and
introduce smp_mb__after_unlock_lock().)  Or did you have something
else in mind?

But I wouldn't hasten to introduce such a barrier, given that:  (1)
this would be a "do { } while (0)" for all the supported arch. _if_
we sticked to the current implementations, and  (2) even if these
implementations changed or some new arch. required a non-trivial
definition, we still would have to find a "pure/TSO" case  ;-).

  Andrea