On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:36:36AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:46:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 11:23:07PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:58:23AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2019/1/3 上午4:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > > > +#if defined(COMPILER_HAS_OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR) && \
> > > > > + !defined(ARCH_NEEDS_READ_BARRIER_DEPENDS)
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ \
> > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_val = (long)(val); \
> > > > > + long dependent_ptr_mb_ptr = (long)(ptr) - dependent_ptr_mb_val; \
> > > > > + \
> > > > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(val) > sizeof(long)); \
> > > > > + OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(dependent_ptr_mb_val); \
> > > > > + (typeof(ptr))(dependent_ptr_mb_ptr + dependent_ptr_mb_val); \
> > > > > +})
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define dependent_ptr_mb(ptr, val) ({ mb(); (ptr); })
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So for the example of patch 4, we'd better fall back to rmb() or need a
> > > > dependent_ptr_rmb()?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > >
> > > You mean for strongly ordered architectures like Intel?
> > > Yes, maybe it makes sense to have dependent_ptr_smp_rmb,
> > > dependent_ptr_dma_rmb and dependent_ptr_virt_rmb.
> > >
> > > mb variant is unused right now so I'll remove it.
> >
> > How about naming the thing: dependent_ptr() ? That is without any (r)mb
> > implications at all. The address dependency is strictly weaker than an
> > rmb in that it will only order the two loads in qestion and not, like
> > rmb, any prior to any later load.
>
> So I'm fine with this as it's enough for virtio, but I would like to point out two things:
>
> 1. E.g. on x86 both SMP and DMA variants can be NOPs but
> the madatory one can't, so assuming we do not want
> it to be stronger than rmp then either we want
> smp_dependent_ptr(), dma_dependent_ptr(), dependent_ptr()
> or we just will specify that dependent_ptr() works for
> both DMA and SMP.
>
> 2. Down the road, someone might want to order a store after a load.
> Address dependency does that for us too. Assuming we make
> dependent_ptr a NOP on x86, we will want an mb variant
> which isn't a NOP on x86. Will we want to rename
> dependent_ptr to dependent_ptr_rmb at that point?
But x86 preserves store-after-load orderings anyway, and even Alpha
respects ordering from loads to dependent stores. So what am I missing
here?
Thanx, Paul
