All the mail mirrored from lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hp.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with _Q_SLOW_VAL
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:07:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55A7BABE.2070507@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150716054214.GU19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 07/16/2015 01:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:18:23PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 07/15/2015 05:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>   	/*
>>> +	 * A failed cmpxchg doesn't provide any memory-ordering guarantees,
>>> +	 * so we need a barrier to order the read of the node data in
>>> +	 * pv_unhash *after* we've read the lock being _Q_SLOW_VAL.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * Matches the cmpxchg() in pv_wait_head() setting _Q_SLOW_VAL.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	smp_rmb();
>> According to memory_barriers.txt, cmpxchg() is a full memory barrier. It
>> didn't say a failed cmpxchg will lose its memory guarantee. So is the
>> documentation right?
> The documentation is not entirely clear on this; but there are hints
> that this is so.
>
>> Or is that true for some architectures? I think it is
>> not true for x86.
> On x86 LOCK CMPXCHG is always a sync point, but yes there are archs for
> which a failed cmpxchg does _NOT_ provide any barrier semantics.
>
> The reason I started looking was because Will made Argh64 one of those.

That is what I suspected. In that case, I am fine with the patch as 
smp_rmb() is an nop in x86 anyway.

Acked-by:  Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>

BTW, I think we also need to update the documentation to make it clear 
that a failed cmpxchg() or atomic_cmpxchg() may not be a full memory 
barrier as most people may not be aware of that.

Cheers,
Longman

  reply	other threads:[~2015-07-16 14:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-15  2:13 [PATCH 0/6 v2] locking/qspinlock: Enhance pvqspinlock performance Waiman Long
2015-07-15  2:13 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Unconditional PV kick with _Q_SLOW_VAL Waiman Long
2015-07-15  9:10   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16  0:18     ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16  5:42       ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 14:07         ` Waiman Long [this message]
2015-07-16 15:04           ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16 15:10             ` Will Deacon
2015-08-03 16:59               ` [tip:locking/core] locking/Documentation: Clarify failed cmpxchg( ) memory ordering semantics tip-bot for Will Deacon
2015-08-03 17:36                 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-07-15  2:13 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Add pending bit support Waiman Long
2015-07-15  2:13 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Collect slowpath lock statistics Waiman Long
2015-07-15  2:13 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Allow vCPUs kick-ahead Waiman Long
2015-07-15  9:39   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16  2:01     ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16  5:46       ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16 14:51         ` Waiman Long
2015-07-15  2:13 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Opportunistically defer kicking to unlock time Waiman Long
2015-07-15  6:14   ` Raghavendra K T
2015-07-15 10:03   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16  2:18     ` Waiman Long
2015-07-16  5:49       ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-15  2:13 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] locking/pvqspinlock: Queue node adaptive spinning Waiman Long
2015-07-15 10:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-16  2:13     ` Waiman Long

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=55A7BABE.2070507@hp.com \
    --to=waiman.long@hp.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=doug.hatch@hp.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.