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 S1758793AbdKPI6g (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:58:36 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:57390 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933029AbdKPI6T (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:58:19 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:58:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "ishkamiel@gmail.com" <ishkamiel@gmail.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, david@fromorbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] refcount: provide same memory ordering guarantees as in
 atomic_t
Message-ID: <20171116085804.ixw4x7ssf2ruooqg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20171115180540.GQ19071@arm.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1711151411160.1363-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
 <20171115200307.ns4ja7xjwhunen65@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171115205823.GA2608@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171115205823.GA2608@andrea>
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, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:01:11PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:

> > And in specific things like:
> > 
> >   135e8c9250dd5
> >   ecf7d01c229d1
> > 
> > which use the release of rq->lock paired with the next acquire of the
> > same rq->lock to match with an smp_rmb().
> 
> Those cycles are currently forbidden by LKMM _when_ you consider the
> smp_mb__after_spinlock() from schedule().  See rfi-rel-acq-is-not-mb
> from my previous email and Alan's remarks about cumul-fence.

I'm not sure I get your point; and you all seem to forget I do not in
fact speak the ordering lingo. So I have no idea what
rfi-blah-blah or cumul-fence mean.

I know rel-acq isn't smp_mb() and I don't think any of the above patches
need it to be. They just need it do be a local ordering, no?

Even without smp_mb__after_spinlock() we get that:

	spin_lock(&x)
	x = 1
	spin_unlock(&x)
	spin_lock(&x)
	y = 1
	spin_unlock(&x)

guarantees that x happens-before y, right?

And that should be sufficient to then order something else against, like
for example:

	r2 = y
	smp_rmb()
	r1 = x

no?