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:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:44:04 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>,
        "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@redhat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@redhat.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix improper uses of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic()
Message-ID: <20190430164404.GA2874@andrea>
References: <1556568902-12464-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
 <20190430083409.GD2677@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190430083409.GD2677@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:34:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:14:56PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > A relatively common misuse of these barriers is to apply these to
> > operations which are not read-modify-write operations, such as
> > atomic_set() and atomic_read(); examples were discussed in [1].
> > 
> > This series attempts to fix those uses by (conservatively) replacing
> > the smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() barriers with full memory barriers.
> 
> I don't think blindly doing this replacement makes the code any better;
> much of the code you found is just straight up dodgy to begin with.
> 
> I think the people should mostly just consider this a bug report.

Bug, misuse, patch, and rfc seem all appropriate to me in this context.


> Also, remember a memory barrier without a coherent comment is most
> likely a bug anyway.

Right.  Hopefully, the people in Cc: will want to shed some light about
this: I know what these smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() can not do, but
I can only guess (I won't!) what they are supposed to accomplish (e.g.,
which mem. accesses are being ordered, what are the matching barriers);
maybe this can also justify the "conservative" approach presented here.

  Andrea