On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:16:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:50:36PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 08:25 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > Currently, we do need smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() to be after the
> > > acquisition on PPC -- putting it between the unlock and the lock
> > > of course doesn't cut it for the cross-thread unlock/lock case.
>
> This ^, that makes me think I don't understand
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock.
>
> How is:
>
> UNLOCK x
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> LOCK y
>
> a problem? That's still a full barrier.
I thought Paul was talking about something like this case:
CPU A CPU B CPU C
foo = 1
UNLOCK x
LOCK x
(RELEASE) bar = 1
ACQUIRE bar = 1
READ_ONCE foo = 0
but this looks the same as ISA2+lwsyncs/ISA2+lwsync+ctrlisync+lwsync,
which are both forbidden on PPC, so now I'm also confused.
The different-lock, same thread case is more straight-forward, I think.
> > > I am with Peter -- we do need the benchmark results for PPC.
> >
> > Urgh, sorry guys. I have been slowly doing some benchmarks, but time is not
> > plentiful at the moment.
> >
> > If we do a straight lwsync -> sync conversion for unlock it looks like that
> > will cost us ~4.2% on Anton's standard context switch benchmark.
Thanks Michael!
> And that does not seem to agree with Paul's smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> usage and would not be sufficient for the same (as of yet unexplained)
> reason.
>
> Why does it matter which of the LOCK or UNLOCK gets promoted to full
> barrier on PPC in order to become RCsc?
I think we need a PPC litmus test illustrating the inter-thread, same
lock failure case when smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is not present so that
we can reason about this properly. Paul?
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
