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 S1753356AbdHIPPk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:15:40 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:54598 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751995AbdHIPPj (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:15:39 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:15:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5] locking/pvqspinlock: Relax cmpxchg's to
 improve performance on some archs
Message-ID: <20170809151533.ipzeu7vmwi5ttcab@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1495633108-12818-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <20170809150603.6z43zkxnz3hew3jb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170809150603.6z43zkxnz3hew3jb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:06:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now, ARM64 for instance plays funny games, it does something along the
> lines of:
> 
> cmpxchg(ptr, old, new)
> {
> 	do {
> 		r = LL(ptr);
> 		if (r != old)
> 			return r; /* no barriers */
> 		r = new
> 	} while (SC_release(ptr, r));
> 	smp_mb();
> 	return r;
> }
> 
> Thereby ordering things relative to the store on ptr, but the load can
> very much escape. The thinking is that if success, we must observe the
> latest value of ptr, but even in that case the load is not ordered and
> could happen before.
> 
> However, since we're guaranteed to observe the latest value of ptr (on
> success) it doesn't matter if we reordered the load, there is no newer
> value possible.
> 
> So heaps of tricky, but correct afaict. Will?

And could not PPC do something similar:

cmpxchg(ptr, old, new)
{
	lwsync();
	dp {
		r = LL(ptr);
		if (r != old)
			return;
		r = new;
	} while (SC(ptr, r));
	sync();
	return r;
}

?

the lwsync would make it store-release on SC with similar reasoning as
above.

And lwsync allows 'stores reordered after loads', which allows the prior
smp_store_release() to leak past.

Or is the reason this doesn't work on PPC that its RCpc?