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?
Thanks,
--
MST
