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, 1 Apr 2019 08:44:14 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@google.com>
Subject: Re: Potentially missing "memory" clobbers in bitops.h for x86
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.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>
 <8092b8aa-bb1c-0266-b308-5cebfb25e2ef@zytor.com>
 <20190329220554.GD4102@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190401105348.GL11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190401105348.GL11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Message-Id: <20190401154414.GM4102@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:53:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 03:05:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 02:51:26PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > 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?
> 
> Correct, and many implementations do not, including x86:
> 
> static __always_inline void arch_atomic_inc(atomic_t *v)
> {
> 	asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "incl %0"
> 		     : "+m" (v->counter));
> }

Very good!

> > > 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.
> > 
> > From Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst:
> 
> We should delete that file.

Only if all of its content is fully present elsewhere.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul