On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:46:43PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > On 01/14/2016 12:15 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > >>An the only point - please use an appropriate SYNC_* barriers instead of > >>heavy bold hammer. That stuff was design explicitly to support the > >>requirements of Documentation/memory-barriers.txt > >That's madness. That document changes from version to version as to what > >we _think_ the actual hardware does. It is _NOT_ a specification. > > > >You cannot design hardware from that. Its incomplete and fails to > >specify a bunch of things. It not a mathematically sound definition of a > >memory model. > > > >Please stop referring to that document for what a particular barrier > >_should_ do. Explain what MIPS does, so we can attempt to integrate > >this knowledge with our knowledge of PPC/ARM/Alpha/x86/etc. and improve > >upon our understanding of hardware and improve the Linux memory model. > > I am afraid I can't help you here. It is very complicated stuff and > a model is actually doesn't fit your assumptions about CPUs well > without some simplifications which are based on what you want to > have. > > I say that SYNC_ACQUIRE/etc follows what you expect for smp_acquire > etc (basing on that document). And at least two CPU models were > tested with my patches (see it in LMO) for that last year and that > instructions are implemented now in engineering kernel. > > If you have something else in mind, you can ask me. But I prefer to > do not deviate too much from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, for > exam - if it asks to have memory barrier somewhere, then I assume > the code should have it, and please - don't ask me a test which > violates the current version of document recommendations. > > For a moment I don't see a significant changes in this document for > MIPS Arch at least 1.5 year, and the only significant point is that > MIPS CPU Arch doesn't have yet smp_read_barrier_depends() and > smp_rmb() should be used instead. Is SYNC_ACQUIRE a memory-barrier instruction that orders prior loads against later loads and stores? If so, and if MIPS does not do ordering based on address and data dependencies, I suggest making read_barrier_depends() be a SYNC_ACQUIRE rather than SYNC_RMB. Thanx, Paul
