[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56981212.7050301@imgtec.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:24:34 -0800
From: Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@...tec.com>
To: <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>,
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
<linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
<linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-metag@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
<james.hogan@...tec.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [v3,11/41] mips: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h
On 01/14/2016 12:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> So SYNC_RMB is intended to implement smp_rmb(), correct?
Yes.
>
> You could use SYNC_ACQUIRE() to implement read_barrier_depends() and
> smp_read_barrier_depends(), but SYNC_RMB probably does not suffice.
If smp_read_barrier_depends() is used to separate not only two reads but
read pointer and WRITE basing on that pointer (example below) - yes. I
just doesn't see any example of this in famous
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and had no chance to know what you use
it in this way too.
> The reason for this is that smp_read_barrier_depends() must order the
> pointer load against any subsequent read or write through a dereference
> of that pointer.
I can't see that requirement anywhere in Documents directory. I mean -
the words "write through a dereference of that pointer" or similar for
smp_read_barrier_depends.
> For example:
>
> p = READ_ONCE(gp);
> smp_rmb();
> r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_rmb(). */
> p->b = 42; /* NOT ordered by smp_rmb(), BUG!!! */
> r2 = x; /* ordered by smp_rmb(), but doesn't need to be. */
>
> In contrast:
>
> p = READ_ONCE(gp);
> smp_read_barrier_depends();
> r1 = p->a; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */
> p->b = 42; /* ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(). */
> r2 = x; /* not ordered by smp_read_barrier_depends(), which is OK. */
>
> Again, if your hardware maintains local ordering for address
> and data dependencies, you can have read_barrier_depends() and
> smp_read_barrier_depends() be no-ops like they are for most
> architectures.
It is not so simple, I mean "local ordering for address and data
dependencies". Local ordering is NOT enough. It happens that current
MIPS R6 doesn't require in your example smp_read_barrier_depends() but
in discussion it comes out that it may not. Because without
smp_read_barrier_depends() your example can be a part of Will's
WRC+addr+addr and we found some design which easily can bump into this
test. And that design actually performs "local ordering for address and
data dependencies" too.
- Leonid.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists