[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171205212053-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:24:21 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 08:17:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:57:46PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > I don't see WRITE_ONCE inserting any barriers, release or
> > write.
>
> Correct, never claimed there was.
>
> Just saying that:
>
> obj = READ_ONCE(*foo);
> val = READ_ONCE(obj->val);
>
> Never needs a barrier (except on Alpha and we want to make that go
> away). Simply because a CPU needs to complete the load of @obj before it
> can compute the address &obj->val. Thus the second load _must_ come
> after the first load and we get LOAD-LOAD ordering.
>
> Alpha messing that up is a royal pain, and Alpha not being an
> active/living architecture is just not worth the pain of keeping this in
> the generic model.
>
Right. What I am saying is that for writes you need
WRITE_ONCE(obj->val, 1);
smp_wmb();
WRITE_ONCE(*foo, obj);
and this barrier is no longer paired with anything until
you realize there's a dependency barrier within READ_ONCE.
Barrier pairing was a useful tool to check code validity,
maybe there are other, better tools now.
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists