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 S932557AbbCQRAq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:00:46 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:49769 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932135AbbCQRAp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:00:45 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 18:00:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier
 (x86) (v12)
Message-ID: <20150317170032.GF23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150316141939.GE21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1203077851.9491.1426520636551.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20150316172104.GH21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1003922584.10662.1426532015839.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20150316205435.GJ21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <910572156.13900.1426556725438.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20150317063059.GJ2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <680573370.19261.1426598016060.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20150317163756.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20150317164940.GM3589@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150317164940.GM3589@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, Mar 17, 2015 at 09:49:40AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 05:37:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:13:36PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > Its basically: WMB + ACQUIRE, which theoretically can leak a read in,
> > > > but nobody sane _delays_ reads, you want to speculate reads, not
> > > > postpone.
> > > 
> > > If I believe the memory ordering table at
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_ordering , there appears
> > > to be quite a few architectures that can reorder loads after loads,
> > > and loads after stores: Alpha, ARMv7, PA-RISC, SPARC RMO, x86 oostore
> > > and ia64. There may be subtle details that would allow us to
> > > do without the barriers in specific situations, but for that I'd
> > > very much like to hear what Paul has to say.
> > 
> > So I was starting to write that you can get load after load by one
> > speculating more than the other, but I suppose you can delay loads just
> > fine too.
> > 
> > Imagine getting a cache miss on a load, the OoO engine can then continue
> > execution until it hits a hard dependency, so you're effectively
> > delaying the load.
> > 
> > So yeah, if we want to be able to replace smp_rmb() with a
> > barrier+sys_membar() we need to promote the smp_mb__before_spinlock() to
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() or so, that would only penalize PPC a bit.
> 
> Agreed, though if Mathieu is dropping the expedited version for the
> moment, this should not be required yet, right?

Indeed so.