mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"mtk.manpages@gmail.com" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	"dvhart@infradead.org" <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	"dave@stgolabs.net" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	"Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com" <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>,
	"ralf@linux-mips.org" <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
	"ddaney@caviumnetworks.com" <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: futex atomic vs ordering constraints
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:10:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E71F92.4000001@ezchip.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150902125555.GT16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 09/02/2015 08:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So here goes..
>
> Chris, I'm awfully sorry, but I seem to be Tile challenged.
>
> TileGX seems to define:
>
> #define smp_mb__before_atomic()	smp_mb()
> #define smp_mb__after_atomic()	smp_mb()
>
> However, its atomic_add_return() implementation looks like:
>
> static inline int atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> {
> 	int val;
> 	smp_mb();  /* barrier for proper semantics */
> 	val = __insn_fetchadd4((void *)&v->counter, i) + i;
> 	barrier();  /* the "+ i" above will wait on memory */
> 	return val;
> }
>
> Which leaves me confused on smp_mb__after_atomic().

Are you concerned about whether it has proper memory
barrier semantics already, i.e. full barriers before and after?
In fact we do have a full barrier before, but then because of the
"+ i" / "barrier()", we know that the only other operation since
the previous mb(), namely the read of v->counter, has
completed after the atomic operation.  As a result we can
omit explicitly having a second barrier.

It does seem like all the current memory-order semantics are
correct, unless I'm missing something!

> That said, your futex ops seem to lack any memory barrier, so naively
> I'd add both, its just that your add_return() confuses me.

So something like this?

diff --git a/arch/tile/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/tile/include/asm/futex.h
index 1a6ef1b69cb1..0a5501b11d02 100644
--- a/arch/tile/include/asm/futex.h
+++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/futex.h
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
  #ifdef __tilegx__
  
  #define __futex_asm(OP) \
+	smp_mb();						\
  	asm("1: {" #OP " %1, %3, %4; movei %0, 0 }\n"		\
  	    ".pushsection .fixup,\"ax\"\n"			\
  	    "0: { movei %0, %5; j 9f }\n"			\
@@ -48,7 +49,8 @@
  	    ".popsection\n"					\
  	    "9:"						\
  	    : "=r" (ret), "=r" (val), "+m" (*(uaddr))		\
-	    : "r" (uaddr), "r" (oparg), "i" (-EFAULT))
+	    : "r" (uaddr), "r" (oparg), "i" (-EFAULT)); 	\
+	smp_mb()
  
  #define __futex_set() __futex_asm(exch4)
  #define __futex_add() __futex_asm(fetchadd4)
@@ -75,7 +77,10 @@
  
  #define __futex_call(FN)						\
  	{								\
-		struct __get_user gu = FN((u32 __force *)uaddr, lock, oparg); \
+		struct __get_user gu;					\
+		smp_mb();						\
+		gu = FN((u32 __force *)uaddr, lock, oparg);		\
+		/* See smp_mb__after_atomic() */			\
  		val = gu.val;						\
  		ret = gu.err;						\
  	}

-- 
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com


  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-02 16:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-26 18:16 Peter Zijlstra
2015-08-29  1:33 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-09-01 16:38   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-01 16:31 ` Will Deacon
2015-09-01 16:42   ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-01 16:47     ` Will Deacon
2015-09-01 19:05     ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-09-02 12:55       ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-02 16:10         ` Chris Metcalf [this message]
2015-09-02 17:00           ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-02 17:25             ` Chris Metcalf
2015-09-02 21:18             ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-04 17:25               ` Chris Metcalf
2015-09-05 17:53               ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-07  9:30                 ` Will Deacon

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=55E71F92.4000001@ezchip.com \
    --to=cmetcalf@ezchip.com \
    --cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=rth@twiddle.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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