mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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,
	dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	sbw@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] documentation: Add acquire/release barriers to pairing rules
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:57:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140714115738.GW19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140708153117.GJ4603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1854 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:31:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Good point, how about the following?
> 
> 	General barriers pair with each other, though they also pair
> 	with most other types of barriers, albeit without transitivity.

> 	An acquire barrier pairs with a release barrier, but both may also
> 	pair with other barriers, including of course general barriers.

> 	A write barrier pairs with a data dependency barrier, an acquire
> 	barrier, a release barrier, a read barrier, or a general barrier.

> 	Similarly a read barrier or a data dependency barrier pairs
> 	with a write barrier, an acquire barrier, a release barrier,
> 	or a general barrier:

It might be clearer with the added whitespace, or as an explicit list  I
suppose, but yes.

> > Also, it might be good to have a section on the ramifications of pairing
> > acquire/release with other than themselves, I have the feeling there's
> > subtle things there.
> 
> It can get quite subtle.  For the time being, I am dodging this subtlety
> by saying that only general barriers provide transitivity (see the
> "TRANSITIVITY" section).

Ah, I was more thinking of the fact that ACQUIRE/RELEASE are
semi-permeable while READ/WRITE are memop dependent.

So any combination will be a semi-permeable memop dependent thing,
which is the most narrow barrier possible.

So if we thing of ACQUIRE/RELEASE as being 'half' a full barrier,
separated in direction, and READ/WRITE as being 'half' a full barrier
separated on type, then the combination is a 'quarter' barrier.

Not arguing they're not useful, just saying we need to be extra careful.

> Maybe some day we should capture this subtlety in memory-barriers.txt,
> but we will first need a new generation of small children who are not
> scared by the current document.  ;-)

Lolz :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-14 11:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-07 22:23 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Documentation changes for 3.17 Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:24 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/4] documentation: Clarify wake-up/memory-barrier relationship Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:24   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/4] documentation: Update reference, kerneltrap.org no longer works Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:24   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] documentation: Add acquire/release barriers to pairing rules Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08  7:59     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-08 15:31       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-14 11:57         ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-07-16 12:16           ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-16 13:05             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-16 13:18               ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-16 13:27                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2014-07-07 22:24   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/4] documentation: Add pointer to percpu-ref for RCU and refcount Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08  7:53   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/4] documentation: Clarify wake-up/memory-barrier relationship Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-08  0:14 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/4] Documentation changes for 3.17 Josh Triplett
2014-07-08  8:51   ` Lai Jiangshan

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=20140714115738.GW19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sbw@mit.edu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®