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 S1755444Ab3LJR02 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:26:28 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:56498 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755010Ab3LJR01 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:26:27 -0500
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:25:28 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, darren@dvhart.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        sbw@mit.edu, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/locking 5/7]
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt: Downgrade UNLOCK+LOCK
Message-ID: <20131210172528.GQ12849@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20131210012738.GA24317@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1386638883-25379-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1386638883-25379-5-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20131210131422.GG12849@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20131210171247.GQ4208@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131210171247.GQ4208@linux.vnet.ibm.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 Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:12:47AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The way I read the above it says that you need
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() when the UNLOCK and LOCK are on the same
> > variable. That doesn't make sense, I thought that was the one case we
> > all agreed on it would indeed be a full barrier without extra trickery.
> 
> On x86, sure, but smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is nothingness on x86
> anyway.  Other architectures might benefit from requiring that the
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() be used in this case.

Confused, UNLOCK X, LOCK X, must always be fully serializing. That's the
entire purpose of the thing.

The only place you can go play games (and clearly we are going there) is
when the UNLOCK and LOCK are on different variables.