linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant read_barrier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171205211735.GT3165@worktop.lehotels.local>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 22:17:35 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/21] drivers/vhost: Remove now-redundant
 read_barrier_depends()

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:28:38PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:57:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(obj->val, 1);
> > > > > smp_wmb();
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(*foo, obj);
> > > > 
> > > > I believe Peter was instead suggesting:
> > > > 
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(obj->val, 1);
> > > > smp_store_release(foo, obj);
> > > 
> > > Isn't that more expensive though?
> > 
> > Depends on the architecture. The only architecture where it is more
> > expensive and people actually still care about is ARM I think.
> 
> Right. Why should I use the more expensive smp_store_release then?

Because it makes more sense. Memory ordering is hard enough, don't make
it harder still if you don't have to.