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 S1753810AbdHUTZ6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:25:58 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:36759 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753492AbdHUTZ5 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:25:57 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:25:50 +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: <20170821192550.3dbj3jbgl33v2eeg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <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>
 <20170821105508.j3p4zv7mdojpyb7e@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170821180001.GA22335@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170821180001.GA22335@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 Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 07:00:02PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > No, I meant _from_ the LL load, not _to_ a later load.
> 
> Sorry, I'm still not following enough to give you a definitive answer on
> that. Could you give an example, please? These sequences usually run in
> a loop, so the conditional branch back (based on the status flag) is where
> the read-after-read comes in.
> 
> Any control dependencies from the loaded data exist regardless of the status
> flag.

Basically what Waiman ended up doing, something like:

        if (cmpxchg_relaxed(&pn->state, vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed) != vcpu_halted)
                return;

        WRITE_ONCE(l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);

Where the STORE depends on the LL value being 'complete'.


For any RmW we can only create a control dependency from the LOAD. The
the same could be done for something like:

	if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&obj->refs))
		WRITE_ONCE(obj->foo, 1);

Where we only do the STORE if we acquire the reference. While the
WRITE_ONCE() will not be ordered against the increment, it is ordered
against the LL and we know it must not be 0.

Per the LL/SC loop we'll have observed a !0 value and committed the SC
(which need not be visible or ordered against any later store) but both
STORES (SC and the WRITE_ONCE) must be after the ->refs LOAD.