On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 06:03:18PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:38:53PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:40:59AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 05:11:43PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > And in fact the unlock+lock barrier is all that RCU needs. I guess the
> > > > question is whether it is worth having two flavors of __after_spinlock(),
> > > > one that is a full barrier with just the lock, and another that is
> > > > only guaranteed to be a full barrier with unlock+lock.
> > >
> > > I think it's worth distinguishing those cases because, in my mind, one is
> > > potentially a lot heavier than the other. The risk is that we end up
> > > producing a set of strangely named barrier abstractions that nobody can
> > > figure out how to use properly:
> > >
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Prevent re-ordering of arbitrary accesses across spin_lock and
> > > * spin_unlock.
> > > */
> > > mb__after_spin_lock()
> > > mb__after_spin_unlock()
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Order spin_lock() vs spin_unlock()
> > > */
> > > mb__between_spin_unlock_lock() /* Horrible name! */
> > >
> > >
> > > We could potentially replace the first set of barriers with spin_lock_mb()
> > > and spin_unlock_mb() variants (which would be more efficient than half
> > > barrier + full barrier), then we only end up with strangely named barrier
> > > which applies to the non _mb() spinlock routines.
> >
> > How about the current mb__before_spinlock() making the acquisition be
> > a full barrier, and an mb_after_spinlock() making a prior release plus
> > this acquisition be a full barrier?
>
> Hmm, without horrible hacks to keep track of whether we've done an
> mb__before_spinlock() without a matching spinlock(), that's going to end up
> with full-barrier + pointless half-barrier (similarly on the release path).
We should be able to detect mb__before_spinlock() without a matching
spinlock via static analysis, right?
Or am I missing your point?
> > Yes, we might need better names, but I believe that this approach does
> > what you need.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I still think we need to draw the distinction between ordering all accesses
> against a lock and ordering an unlock against a lock. The latter is free for
> arm64 (STLR => LDAR is ordered) but the former requires a DMB.
>
> Not sure I completely got your drift...
Here is what I am suggesting:
o mb__before_spinlock():
o Must appear immediately before a lock acquisition.
o Upgrades a lock acquisition to a full barrier.
o Emits DMB on ARM64.
o mb_after_spinlock():
o Must appear immediatly after a lock acquisition.
o Upgrades an unlock+lock pair to a full barrier.
o Emits a no-op on ARM64, as in "do { } while (0)".
o Might need a separate flavor for queued locks on
some platforms, but no sign of that yet.
Does that make sense?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>