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;
Subject: Re: Potentially missing "memory" clobbers in bitops.h for x86
To:     paulmck@linux.ibm.com
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@google.com>
References: <CAG_fn=X9tpSW6jvJd_COk_RU8zvcr-cxSWuJ05qcV0LotTxEEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190328162222.GO4102@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAG_fn=WKA_4Vzsh6yH+=5TFv-EMrX87pr+2c_ANoH_MOVpbe1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <8e32ab34-c14c-1ccb-76f9-0dcd729a0ef6@zytor.com>
 <20190329210918.GZ4102@linux.ibm.com>
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <8092b8aa-bb1c-0266-b308-5cebfb25e2ef@zytor.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:51:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190329210918.GZ4102@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/29/19 2:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>
>> Note: the atomic versions of these functions obviously need to have
>> "volatile" and the clobber anyway, as they are by definition barriers
>> and moving memory operations around them would be a very serious error.
> 
> The atomic functions that return void don't need to order anything except
> the input and output arguments.  The oddness with clear_bit() is that the
> memory changed isn't necessarily the quantity referenced by the argument,
> if the number of bits specified is large.
> 
> So (for example) atomic_inc() does not need a "memory" clobber, right?
> 

I don't believe that is true: the code calling it has a reasonable
expectation that previous memory operations have finished and later
memory operations have not started from the point of view of another
processor. You are more of an expert on memory ordering than I am, but
I'm 89% sure that there is plenty of code in the kernel which makes that
assumption.

	-hpa