From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, dvyukov@google.com, will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Clarify why the cmpxchg_relaxed() family of APIs falls back to full cmpxchg()
Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 12:35:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180505103550.s7xsnto7tgppkmle@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180505101609.5wb56j4mspjkokmw@tardis>
* Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 11:38:29AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So we could do the following simplification on top of that:
> > > > >
> > > > > #ifndef atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed
> > > > > # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec(v) atomic_fetch_sub(1, (v))
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed(v) atomic_fetch_sub_relaxed(1, (v))
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(v) atomic_fetch_sub_acquire(1, (v))
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_release(v) atomic_fetch_sub_release(1, (v))
> > > > > # else
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_relaxed atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_release atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > > # endif
> > > > > #else
> > > > > # ifndef atomic_fetch_dec
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec(...) __atomic_op_fence(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_acquire(...) __atomic_op_acquire(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > > # define atomic_fetch_dec_release(...) __atomic_op_release(atomic_fetch_dec, __VA_ARGS__)
> > > > > # endif
> > > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > This would disallow an architecture to override just fetch_dec_release for
> > > > instance.
> > >
> > > Couldn't such a crazy arch just define _all_ the 3 APIs in this group?
> > > That's really a small price and makes the place pay the complexity
> > > price that does the weirdness...
> > >
> > > > I don't think there currently is any architecture that does that, but the
> > > > intent was to allow it to override anything and only provide defaults where it
> > > > does not.
> > >
> > > I'd argue that if a new arch only defines one of these APIs that's probably a bug.
> > > If they absolutely want to do it, they still can - by defining all 3 APIs.
> > >
> > > So there's no loss in arch flexibility.
> >
> > BTW., PowerPC for example is already in such a situation, it does not define
> > atomic_cmpxchg_release(), only the other APIs:
> >
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg(v, o, n) (cmpxchg(&((v)->counter), (o), (n)))
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, o, n) \
> > cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
> > #define atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
> > cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
> >
> > Was it really the intention on the PowerPC side that the generic code falls back
> > to cmpxchg(), i.e.:
> >
> > # define atomic_cmpxchg_release(...) __atomic_op_release(atomic_cmpxchg, __VA_ARGS__)
> >
>
> So ppc has its own definition __atomic_op_release() in
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h:
>
> #define __atomic_op_release(op, args...) \
> ({ \
> __asm__ __volatile__(PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER "" : : : "memory"); \
> op##_relaxed(args); \
> })
>
> , and PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER is lwsync, so we map to
>
> lwsync();
> atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, o, n);
>
> And the reason, why we don't define atomic_cmpxchg_release() but define
> atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() is that, atomic_cmpxchg_*() could provide no
> ordering guarantee if the cmp fails, we did this for
> atomic_cmpxchg_acquire() but not for atomic_cmpxchg_release(), because
> doing so may introduce a memory barrier inside a ll/sc critical section,
> please see the comment before __cmpxchg_u32_acquire() in
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:
>
> /*
> * cmpxchg family don't have order guarantee if cmp part fails, therefore we
> * can avoid superfluous barriers if we use assembly code to implement
> * cmpxchg() and cmpxchg_acquire(), however we don't do the similar for
> * cmpxchg_release() because that will result in putting a barrier in the
> * middle of a ll/sc loop, which is probably a bad idea. For example, this
> * might cause the conditional store more likely to fail.
> */
Makes sense, thanks a lot for the explanation, missed that comment in the middle
of the assembly functions!
So the patch I sent is buggy, please disregard it.
May I suggest the patch below? No change in functionality, but it documents the
lack of the cmpxchg_release() APIs and maps them explicitly to the full cmpxchg()
version. (Which the generic code does now in a rather roundabout way.)
Also, the change to arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h has no functional effect
right now either, but should anyone add a _relaxed() variant in the future, with
this change atomic_cmpxchg_release() and atomic64_cmpxchg_release() will pick that
up automatically.
Would this be acceptable?
Thanks,
Ingo
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h | 4 ++++
arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h | 13 +++++++++++++
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
index 682b3e6a1e21..f7a6f29acb12 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/atomic.h
@@ -213,6 +213,8 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_dec_return_relaxed(atomic_t *v)
cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
#define atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
+#define atomic_cmpxchg_release(v, o, n) \
+ cmpxchg_release(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
#define atomic_xchg(v, new) (xchg(&((v)->counter), new))
#define atomic_xchg_relaxed(v, new) xchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (new))
@@ -519,6 +521,8 @@ static __inline__ long atomic64_dec_if_positive(atomic64_t *v)
cmpxchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
#define atomic64_cmpxchg_acquire(v, o, n) \
cmpxchg_acquire(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
+#define atomic64_cmpxchg_release(v, o, n) \
+ cmpxchg_release(&((v)->counter), (o), (n))
#define atomic64_xchg(v, new) (xchg(&((v)->counter), new))
#define atomic64_xchg_relaxed(v, new) xchg_relaxed(&((v)->counter), (new))
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
index 9b001f1f6b32..1f1d35062f3a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
@@ -512,6 +512,13 @@ __cmpxchg_acquire(void *ptr, unsigned long old, unsigned long new,
(unsigned long)_o_, (unsigned long)_n_, \
sizeof(*(ptr))); \
})
+
+/*
+ * cmpxchg_release() falls back to a full cmpxchg(),
+ * see the comments at __cmpxchg_u32_acquire():
+ */
+#define cmpxchg_release cmpxchg
+
#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
#define cmpxchg64(ptr, o, n) \
({ \
@@ -538,5 +545,11 @@ __cmpxchg_acquire(void *ptr, unsigned long old, unsigned long new,
#define cmpxchg64_local(ptr, o, n) __cmpxchg64_local_generic((ptr), (o), (n))
#endif
+/*
+ * cmpxchg64_release() falls back to a full cmpxchg(),
+ * see the comments at __cmpxchg_u32_acquire():
+ */
+#define cmpxchg64_release cmpxchg64
+
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
#endif /* _ASM_POWERPC_CMPXCHG_H_ */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-05 10:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-04 17:39 [PATCH 0/6] arm64: add instrumented atomics Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 1/6] locking/atomic, asm-generic: instrument ordering variants Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 18:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-04 18:09 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 18:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05 9:12 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-05 8:11 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 8:36 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Simplify the op definitions in atomic.h some more Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 8:54 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Combine the atomic_andnot() and atomic64_andnot() API definitions Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:15 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 14:15 ` [PATCH] " Andrea Parri
2018-05-06 12:14 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/atomics: Simplify the op definitions in atomic.h some more tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-09 7:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-09 13:03 ` Will Deacon
2018-05-15 8:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-15 8:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-15 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 12:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 15:43 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-15 17:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 17:53 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-15 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 18:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-15 18:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-05-15 19:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-21 17:12 ` Mark Rutland
2018-05-06 14:12 ` [PATCH] " Andrea Parri
2018-05-06 14:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-07 9:54 ` Andrea Parri
2018-05-18 18:43 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2018-05-05 8:47 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05 9:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:00 ` [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Introduce optimized cmpxchg_release() family of APIs for PowerPC Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:26 ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-06 1:56 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-05-05 10:16 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 10:35 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2018-05-05 11:28 ` [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Clarify why the cmpxchg_relaxed() family of APIs falls back to full cmpxchg() Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 13:27 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics/powerpc: Move cmpxchg helpers to asm/cmpxchg.h and define the full set of cmpxchg APIs Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 14:03 ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-06 12:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-07 1:04 ` Boqun Feng
2018-05-07 6:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:13 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Boqun Feng
2018-05-07 13:31 ` [PATCH v2] " Boqun Feng
2018-05-05 9:05 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Dmitry Vyukov
2018-05-05 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-07 6:43 ` [RFC PATCH] locking/atomics/x86/64: Clean up and fix details of <asm/atomic64_64.h> Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 9:09 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-05 10:48 ` [PATCH] locking/atomics: Shorten the __atomic_op() defines to __op() Ingo Molnar
2018-05-05 10:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:15 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-06 12:14 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/atomics: Clean up the atomic.h maze of #defines tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking/atomic, asm-generic: instrument atomic*andnot*() Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 3/6] arm64: use <linux/atomic.h> for cmpxchg Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 4/6] arm64: fix assembly constraints " Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 5/6] arm64: use instrumented atomics Mark Rutland
2018-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH 6/6] arm64: instrument smp_{load_acquire,store_release} Mark Rutland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180505103550.s7xsnto7tgppkmle@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome