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 S1753492AbdHUKzT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:55:19 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:60358 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752462AbdHUKzR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:55:17 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:55:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, 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>,
        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: <20170821105508.j3p4zv7mdojpyb7e@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170810115034.ie65wfxepiq6noew@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <945c28c3-5779-c8c8-13bb-40477abd1f0e@redhat.com>
 <e5c69658-c5d5-5171-86ed-7716d8d1eedd@redhat.com>
 <20170810161524.2wzocpcxrliy7nt6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <7cb318a8-d5b9-0019-a537-1720fc5222cc@redhat.com>
 <73daa6e6-537e-b0ce-e1e0-7afa75334509@redhat.com>
 <20170811090601.2owslxi4lgv3kond@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170814120121.GA24249@arm.com>
 <20170814184711.GL6524@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170815184034.GD10801@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170815184034.GD10801@arm.com>
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 Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 07:40:35PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:47:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 01:01:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Yeah, that's right, you can't use the STXR status flag to create control
> > > dependencies.
> > 
> > Just for my elucidation; you can't use it to create a control dependency
> > on the store, but you can use it to create a control dependency on the
> > corresponding load, right?
> 
> Hmm, sort of, but I'd say that the reads are really ordered due to
> read-after-read ordering in that case. Control dependencies to loads
> don't give you order.

No, I meant _from_ the LL load, not _to_ a later load.

> > Now, IIRC, we've defined control dependencies as being LOAD->STORE
> > ordering, so in that respect nothing is lost. But maybe we should
> > explicitly mention that if the LOAD is part of an (otherwise) atomic RmW
> > the STORE is not constrained.
> 
> I could well be misreading your suggestion, but it feels like that's too
> weak. You can definitely still have control dependencies off the LL part
> of the LL/SC pair, just not off the SC part.
> 
> E.g. this version of LB is forbidden on arm64:
> 
> P0:
> if (atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&x) == 2)
> 	atomic_set(&y, 1);
> 
> P1:
> if (atomic_inc_return_relaxed(&y) == 2)
> 	atomic_set(&x, 1);
> 
> Perhaps when you say "the STORE", you mean the store in the atomic RmW,
> rather than the store in the LOAD->STORE control dependency?

Yes. So I was looking to exclude (SC) STORE -> STORE order through
control dependencies.