Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:15:35 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
Cc:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] MIPS: Octeon: Implement __smp_store_release()
Message-ID: <YBLVF0tliXY2G0XZ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210127203627.47510-1-alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
 <20210127203627.47510-2-alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
 <YBHp4139X+p+4IZ+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <aace6ff1-9ddf-15af-3c0a-378c53c59acb@nokia.com>
 <YBKhBQQ97f/J6L+u@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b00f945a-1278-5fd2-321c-6ea5f07be128@nokia.com>
 <YBLQ9hbj8Zafjz+c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YBLQ9hbj8Zafjz+c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:57:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:52:22PM +0100, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> > 
> > On 28/01/2021 12:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > This, from commit 6b07d38aaa52 ("MIPS: Octeon: Use optimized memory
> > > barrier primitives."):
> > > 
> > > 	#define smp_mb__before_llsc() smp_wmb()
> > > 	#define __smp_mb__before_llsc() __smp_wmb()
> > > 
> > > is also dodgy as hell and really wants a comment too. I'm not buying the
> > > Changelog of that commit either, __smp_mb__before_llsc should also
> > > ensure the LL cannot happen earlier, but SYNCW has no effect on loads.
> > > So what stops the load from being speculated?
> > 
> > hmm, the commit message you point to above, says:
> > 
> > "Since Octeon does not do speculative reads, this functions as a full barrier."
> 
> So then the only difference between SYNC and SYNCW is a pipeline drain?
> 
> I still worry about the transitivity thing.. ISTR that being a sticky
> point back then too.

Ah, there we are, it's called multi-copy-atomic these days:

  f1ab25a30ce8 ("memory-barriers: Replace uses of "transitive"")

Do those SYNCW / write-completion barriers guarantee this?