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
next prev parent 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