[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1444781400.12197.4.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:10:00 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3 1/6] powerpc: atomic: Make *xchg and *cmpxchg
a full barrier
On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 22:30 +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> According to memory-barriers.txt, xchg, cmpxchg and their atomic{,64}_
> versions all need to imply a full barrier, however they are now just
> RELEASE+ACQUIRE, which is not a full barrier.
>
> So replace PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER and PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER with
> PPC_ATOMIC_ENTRY_BARRIER and PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER in
> __{cmp,}xchg_{u32,u64} respectively to guarantee a full barrier
> semantics of atomic{,64}_{cmp,}xchg() and {cmp,}xchg().
>
> This patch is a complement of commit b97021f85517 ("powerpc: Fix
> atomic_xxx_return barrier semantics").
>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.4.y-
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Hi Boqun,
Thanks for fixing this. In future you should send a patch like this as a
separate patch. I've not been paying attention to it because I assumed it was
part of your full series and was still under discussion like the other patches.
I don't think we've seen any crashes caused by this have we? So I guess I'll
put it in next to let it get some wider testing rather than sending it straight
to Linus.
To be clear you're doing:
> - PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER
> + PPC_ATOMIC_ENTRY_BARRIER
Which is correct but doesn't actually change anything at the moment, because
both macros turn into LWSYNC.
On the other hand:
> - PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER
> + PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER
Is changing an isync (which is then patched to lwsync on some cpus), with a sync.
Also I'm not clear what your stable line means:
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.4.y-
Do you mean 3.4 and anything after? I usually write that as 3.4+, but I'm not
sure if that's the correct syntax either.
cheers
--
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