From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752221AbdK3JPt (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:15:49 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:60170 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751711AbdK3JPr (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2017 04:15:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:15:32 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Boqun Feng Cc: Alan Stern , Daniel Lustig , "Paul E. McKenney" , Andrea Parri , Luc Maranget , Jade Alglave , Nicholas Piggin , Will Deacon , David Howells , Palmer Dabbelt , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Unlock-lock questions and the Linux Kernel Memory Model Message-ID: <20171130091532.qdczu5zz43okruu6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <17506ed0-1ce8-791d-7cf1-c40426015a99@nvidia.com> <20171130085509.GA9516@tardis> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171130085509.GA9516@tardis> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:55:09PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > But in case of AMOs, which directly send the addition request to memory > controller, so there wouldn't be any read part or even write part of the > atomic_inc() executed by CPU. Would this be allowed then? Personally I bloody hate AMOs that don't respect the normal way of things.