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, 30 Sep 2019 14:02:29 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        jose.marchesi@oracle.com
Subject: Re: Do we need to correct barriering in circular-buffers.rst?
Message-ID: <20190930120229.GD4581@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <28447.1568728295@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20190917170716.ud457wladfhhjd6h@willie-the-truck>
 <15228.1568821380@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <5385.1568901546@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20190923144931.GC2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190927095107.GA13098@andrea>
 <20190927124929.GB4643@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKwvOd=pZYiozmGv+DVpzJ1u9_0k4CXb3M1EAcu22DQF+bW0fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190930093352.GM4553@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190930115440.GC4581@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190930115440.GC4581@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 01:54:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:33:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Like I said before, something like: "disallowing store hoists over control
> > flow depending on a volatile load" would be sufficient I think.
> 
> We need to add 'control flow depending on an inline-asm' to that. We
> also very much use that.

An example of that would be something like:

bool spin_try_lock(struct spinlock *lock)
{
	u32 zero = 0;

	if (atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(&lock->val, &zero, 1)) {
		smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep(); /* aka smp_rmb() */
		return true;
	}

	return false;
}

(I think most our actual trylock functions use cmpxchg_acquire(), but the
above would be a valid implementation -- and it is the simplest
construct using smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() I could come up with in a
hurry)