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, 15 Nov 2017 14:15:19 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "ishkamiel@gmail.com" <ishkamiel@gmail.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <parri.andrea@gmail.com>, <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        <dhowells@redhat.com>, <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] refcount: provide same memory ordering guarantees as in
 atomic_t
In-Reply-To: <20171115180540.GQ19071@arm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1711151411160.1363-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Will Deacon wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:21:56PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > I was trying to think of something completely different.  If you have a
> > release/acquire to the same address, it creates a happens-before
> > ordering:
> > 
> > 	Access x
> > 	Release a
> > 	Acquire a
> > 	Access y
> > 
> > Here is the access to x happens-before the access to y.  This is true
> > even on x86, even in the presence of forwarding -- the CPU still has to
> > execute the instructions in order.  But if the release and acquire are
> > to different addresses:
> > 
> > 	Access x
> > 	Release a
> > 	Acquire b
> > 	Access y
> > 
> > then there is no happens-before ordering for x and y -- the CPU can
> > execute the last two instructions before the first two.  x86 and
> > PowerPC won't do this, but I believe ARMv8 can.  (Please correct me if
> > it can't.)
> 
> Release/Acquire are RCsc on ARMv8, so they are ordered irrespective of
> address.

Ah, okay, thanks.

In any case, we have considered removing this ordering constraint
(store-release followed by load-acquire for the same location) from the
Linux-kernel memory model.  I'm not aware of any code in the kernel
that depends on it.  Do any of you happen to know of any examples?

Alan


From 1584169826005434379@xxx Wed Nov 15 21:41:15 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582046402032606032
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread