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, 27 Sep 2018 10:57:28 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
Cc:     will.deacon@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, longman@redhat.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] locking/qspinlock: Optimize for x86
Message-ID: <20180927085728.GF5254@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180926110117.405325143@infradead.org>
 <20180926111307.513429499@infradead.org>
 <20180926205208.GA4864@andrea>
 <20180927071747.GD5254@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180927074748.GA7939@andrea>
 <20180927075935.GA4889@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180927081314.GA8285@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180927081314.GA8285@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:13:15AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:59:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:47:48AM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > > LKMM in particular does _NOT_ deal with mixed sized atomics _at_all_.
> > > 
> > > True, but it is nothing conceptually new to deal with: there're Cat
> > > models that handle mixed-size accesses, just give it time.
> > 
> > Sure, but until that time I must not rely on (and thus not use) LKMM for
> > qspinlock things.
> 
> This is way too generic to be agreed ;D

Only if you know that thing well enough to know why it gives a certain
answer, and thus don't already need it.

If you need it to help you with something; it can't because it doesn't
do the mixed size thing.

> > So while your argument about coherence might be true -- I'll have to
> > think about it; litmus tests are out the window.
> 
> You trimmed the litmus test I gave you.

Because of not wanting to reverse engineer the argument from the litmus
test. But yes, I think I see your point, the earlier trylock will load
the new value and our later load cannot be earlier than that.