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:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:37:37 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Daniel Kroening <kroening@cs.ox.ac.uk>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM
Message-ID: <20190419163737.GA8690@andrea>
References: <20190418125412.GA10817@andrea>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1904181324420.1303-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20190419005302.GA5311@andrea>
 <20190419124720.GU14111@linux.ibm.com>
 <2827195a-f203-b9cd-444d-cf6425cef06f@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2827195a-f203-b9cd-444d-cf6425cef06f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > +     (1) The compiler can reorder the load from a to precede the
> > +     atomic_dec(), (2) Because x86 smp_mb__before_atomic() is only a
> > +     compiler barrier, the CPU can reorder the preceding store to
> > +     obj->dead with the later load from a.
> > +
> > +     This could be avoided by using READ_ONCE(), which would prevent the
> > +     compiler from reordering due to both atomic_dec() and READ_ONCE()
> > +     being volatile accesses, and is usually preferable for loads from
> > +     shared variables.  However, weakly ordered CPUs would still be
> > +     free to reorder the atomic_dec() with the load from a, so a more
> > +     readable option is to also use smp_mb__after_atomic() as follows:
> > +
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(obj->dead, 1);
> > +	smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > +	atomic_dec(&obj->ref_count);
> > +	smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > +	r1 = READ_ONCE(a);
> 
> The point here is not just "readability", but also the portability of the
> code, isn't it?

The implicit assumption was, I guess, that all weakly ordered CPUs which
are free to reorder the atomic_dec() with the READ_ONCE() execute a full
memory barrier in smp_mb__before_atomic() ...  This assumption currently
holds, AFAICT, but yes: it may well become "non-portable"! ... ;-)

  Andrea