[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whTtu-7NxtsVMzxVWXaRM1rcCWYEVL8hwNxEVEqpfZETQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 09:25:45 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: cl@...two.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Avoid memory barrier in read_seqcount() through load acquire
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 01:46, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> If you cannot disclose that for some reason, just say "on my ARM64 test
> machine" or something like that, so that we're not implying that this is
> true for all ARM64 implementations.
It's the same machine I have - an Ampere Altra. It's a standard
Neoverse N1 core, afaik.
It might also be a good idea to just point to the ARM documentation,
although I don't know how stable those web addresses are:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102336/0100/Load-Acquire-and-Store-Release-instructions
and quoting the relevant part on that page:
"Weaker ordering requirements that are imposed by Load-Acquire and
Store-Release instructions allow for micro-architectural
optimizations, which could reduce some of the performance impacts that
are otherwise imposed by an explicit memory barrier.
If the ordering requirement is satisfied using either a Load-Acquire
or Store-Release, then it would be preferable to use these
instructions instead of a DMB"
where that last sentence is basically ARM saying that load-acquire is
better than load+DMB and should be preferred.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists