Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1260923
| From | Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() |
| Date | 2015-11-02 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqtqP-10k-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qqnOq-5Zc-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qqnOq-5Zc-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qqrIn-7E-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qqsbn-hk-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qqsO5-JS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:08:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> > +#define smp_cond_acquire(cond) do { \
> >> > + while (!(cond)) \
> >> > + cpu_relax(); \
> >> > + smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* ctrl */ \
> >> > + smp_rmb(); /* ctrl + rmb := acquire */ \
> >> > +} while (0)
> >>
> >> This code makes absolutely no sense.
> >>
> >> smp_read_barrier_depends() is about a memory barrier where there is a
> >> data dependency between two accesses. The "depends" is very much about
> >> the data dependency, and very much about *nothing* else.
> >
> > Paul wasn't so sure, which I think is why smp_read_barrier_depends()
> > is already used in, for example, READ_ONCE_CTRL:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151007154003.GJ3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>
> Quoting the alpha architecture manual is kind of pointless, when NO
> OTHER ARCHITECTURE OUT THERE guararantees that whole "read +
> conditional orders wrt subsequent writes" _either_.
>
> (Again, with the exception of x86, which has the sane "we honor causality")
>
> Alpha isn't special. And smp_read_barrier_depends() hasn't magically
> become something new.
>
> If people think that control dependency needs a memory barrier on
> alpha, then it damn well needs on on all other weakly ordered
> architectuers too, afaik.
>
> Either that "you cannot finalize a write unless all conditionals it
> depends on are finalized" is true or it is not. That argument has
> *never* been about some architecture-specific memory ordering model,
> as far as I know.
You can imagine a (horribly broken) value-speculating architecture that
would permit this re-ordering, but then you'd have speculative stores
and thin-air values, which Alpha doesn't have.
> As to READ_ONCE_CTRL - two wrongs don't make a right.
Sure, I just wanted to point out the precedence and related discussion.
> That smp_read_barrier_depends() there doesn't make any sense either.
>
> And finally, the alpha architecture manual actually does have the
> notion of "Dependence Constraint" (5.6.1.7) that talks about writes
> that depend on previous reads (where "depends" is explicitly spelled
> out to be about conditionals, write data _or_ write address). They are
> actually constrained on alpha too.
In which case, it looks like we can remove the smp_read_barrier_depends
instances from all of the control-dependency macros, but I'll defer to
Paul in case he has some further insight. I assume you're ok with this
patch if the smp_read_barrier_depends() is removed?
> > In this case, control dependencies are only referring to READ -> WRITE
> > ordering, so they are honoured by ARM and PowerPC.
>
> Do ARM and PPC actually guarantee the generic "previous reads always
> order before subsequent writes"?
Only to *dependent* subsequent writes, but Peter's patch makes all
subsequent writes dependent on cond, so I think that's the right way to
achieve the ordering we want.
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 0/4] scheduler ordering bits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 15:00 +0100
[PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 15:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> - 2015-11-02 21:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 21:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> - 2015-11-02 23:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Document Program-Order guarantees Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 23:20 +0100
[PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 15:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 15:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-02 18:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-03 02:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-03 02:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-02 18:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-02 19:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-02 19:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-02 20:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-02 21:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 21:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 23:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-03 03:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-03 20:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-04 05:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-04 05:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-04 14:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2015-11-02 21:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 21:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-02 22:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-03 18:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-03 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-11 20:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-12 15:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-11 13:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-11 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-11 22:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-12 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-12 15:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-12 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-12 23:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-12 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-12 16:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-12 16:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-12 16:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-12 16:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-12 22:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 16:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-12 18:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-12 19:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-11-12 19:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-12 20:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-12 22:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-11-13 00:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-11-12 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking: Introduce smp_cond_acquire() Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-11-12 23:10 +0100
[PATCH 1/4] sched: Better document the try_to_wake_up() barriers Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 15:00 +0100
[PATCH 3/4] sched: Fix a race in try_to_wake_up() vs schedule() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 15:00 +0100
csiph-web