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:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 10:44:34 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@nvidia.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@inria.fr>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: atomic_t.txt: Explain ordering provided
 by smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
Message-ID: <20190424084434.GM12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190419180017.GP4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419182620.GF14111@linux.ibm.com>
 <1555719429.t9n8gkf70y.astroid@bobo.none>
 <20190420085440.GK14111@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190423121715.GQ4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190423132116.GJ3923@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190423132620.GU4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190423201637.GW3923@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190423202831.GA4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190424082948.GG3923@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190424082948.GG3923@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 01:29:48AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:28:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 01:16:37PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > > Agreed, but I thought that one of the ideas going forward was to get
> > > rid of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic().
> > 
> > It's not one I had considered.. I just wanted to get rid of this
> > 'surprise' behaviour.
> 
> Ah, good point, your patch is in fact a midpoint between those two
> positions.  Just to make sure I understand:
> 
> 1.	Without your patch, smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() orders
> 	only against the atomic itself.

Right, and that was not intentional.

> 2.	With your patch, smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() orders against
> 	the atomic itself and the accesses on the other side of that
> 	atomic.  However, it does not order the atomic against the
> 	accesses on the other side of that atomic.

Right. I'll go make a more complete patch, covering all the
architectures.

> 	Putting things between the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
> 	and the atomic is in my opinion a bad idea, but in this case
> 	they are not necessarily ordered.

Agreed, that is an unsupported idiom and it would be good to have
something check for this.

> 3.	Dispensing with smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() would have
> 	void RMW atomics fully ordered, but I suspect that it results
> 	in ugly performance regressions.
> 
> Or am I still missing something?

I think we're good :-)