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 S1754021AbcIBWQj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:16:39 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:56887 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753093AbcIBWQe (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:16:34 -0400
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:16:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>,
        USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Memory barrier needed with wake_up_process()?
Message-ID: <20160902221629.GK10168@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20160902191857.GL10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1609021526420.2027-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20160902221413.GN10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160902221413.GN10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (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 Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:14:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:16:54PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > 
> > Actually, that's not entirely true (although presumably it works okay
> > for most architectures).
> 
> Yeah, all load-store archs (with exception of PowerPC and ARM64 and
> possibly MIPS) implement ACQUIRE with a general fence (after the ll/sc).
> 
> ( and MIPS doesn't use their fancy barriers in Linux )
> 
> PowerPC does the full fence for smp_mb__before_spinlock, which leaves
> ARM64, I'm not sure its correct, but I'm way too tired to think about
> that now.
> 
> The TSO archs imply full barriers with all atomic RmW ops and are
> therefore also good.
> 

Forgot to Cc Will. Will, does ARM64 need to make smp_mb__before_spinlock
smp_mb() too?