[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150902170008.GU19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:00:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"mtk.manpages@...il.com" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
"dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
"dave@...olabs.net" <dave@...olabs.net>,
"Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com" <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
"ralf@...ux-mips.org" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
"ddaney@...iumnetworks.com" <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux@....linux.org.uk, rth@...ddle.net
Subject: Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:10:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 09/02/2015 08:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >So here goes..
> >
> >Chris, I'm awfully sorry, but I seem to be Tile challenged.
> >
> >TileGX seems to define:
> >
> >#define smp_mb__before_atomic() smp_mb()
> >#define smp_mb__after_atomic() smp_mb()
> >
> >However, its atomic_add_return() implementation looks like:
> >
> >static inline int atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> >{
> > int val;
> > smp_mb(); /* barrier for proper semantics */
> > val = __insn_fetchadd4((void *)&v->counter, i) + i;
> > barrier(); /* the "+ i" above will wait on memory */
> > return val;
> >}
> >
> >Which leaves me confused on smp_mb__after_atomic().
>
> Are you concerned about whether it has proper memory
> barrier semantics already, i.e. full barriers before and after?
> In fact we do have a full barrier before, but then because of the
> "+ i" / "barrier()", we know that the only other operation since
> the previous mb(), namely the read of v->counter, has
> completed after the atomic operation. As a result we can
> omit explicitly having a second barrier.
>
> It does seem like all the current memory-order semantics are
> correct, unless I'm missing something!
So I'm reading that code like:
MB
[RmW] ret = *val += i
So what is stopping later memory ops like:
[R] a = *foo
[S] *bar = b
>From getting reordered with the RmW, like:
MB
[R] a = *foo
[S] *bar = b
[RmW] ret = *val += i
Are you saying Tile does not reorder things like that? If so, why then
is smp_mb__after_atomic() a full mb(). If it does, I don't see how your
add_return is correct.
Alternatively I'm just confused..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists