From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755236AbbFLNE6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:04:58 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:48903 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752275AbbFLNE4 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:04:56 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:04:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        arc-linux-dev@synopsys.com,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARC: add smp barriers around atomics per
 Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
Message-ID: <20150612130450.GY19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1433850508-26317-19-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
 <1434111359-6925-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1434111359-6925-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 05:45:59PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>  - arch_spin_lock/unlock were lacking the ACQUIRE/RELEASE barriers
>    Since ARCv2 only provides load/load, store/store and all/all, we need
>    the full barrier
> 
>  - LLOCK/SCOND based atomics, bitops, cmpxchg, which return modified
>    values were lacking the explicit smp barriers.
>
>  - Non LLOCK/SCOND varaints don't need the explicit barriers since that
>    is implicity provided by the spin locks used to implement the
>    critical section (the spin lock barriers in turn are also fixed in
>    this commit as explained above

And iirc you're relying on asm-generic/barrier.h to issue
smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() as smp_mb(), right?

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

Although I'd love to know why you need those extra barriers in your
spinlocks...