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 S1752585AbbJEOoQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:44:16 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48467 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752454AbbJEOoN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:44:13 -0400
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 15:44:07 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 4/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement xchg_* and
 atomic{,64}_xchg_* variants
Message-ID: <20151005144407.GI8818@arm.com>
References: <1442418575-12297-1-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <1442418575-12297-5-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20151001122440.GP2881@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151001150909.GC4043@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151001171304.GX3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151001180301.GJ4043@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151001180301.GJ4043@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:03:01PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:09:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:24:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > > I must say I'm somewhat surprised by this level of relaxation, I had
> > > > expected to only loose SMP barriers, not the program order ones.
> > > > 
> > > > Is there a good argument for this?
> > > 
> > > Yes, when we say "relaxed", we really mean relaxed.  ;-)
> > > 
> > > Both the CPU and the compiler are allowed to reorder around relaxed
> > > operations.
> > 
> > Is this documented somewhere, because I completely missed this part.
> 
> Well, yes, these need to be added to the documentation.  I am assuming
> that Will is looking to have the same effect as C11 memory_order_relaxed,
> which is relaxed in this sense.  If he has something else in mind,
> he needs to tell us what it is and why.  ;-)

I was treating them purely as being single-copy atomic and not providing
any memory ordering guarantees (much like the non *_return atomic operations
that we already have). I think this lines up with C11, minus the bits
about data races which we don't call out anyway.

Will