On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:28:44PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:41:23AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > This leaves us with a question: Do we want to change the kernel by
> > > adding memory barriers after unsuccessful RMW operations on Alpha, or
> > > do we want to change the model by excluding such operations from
> > > address dependencies?
> >
> > I vote for adding the barrier on Alpha. However, I don't know of any
> > code in the Linux kernel that relies on read-to-read address dependency
> > ordering headed by a failing RMW operation, so I don't feel all that
> > strongly about this.
>
> Right, but not knowing doesn't mean doesn't exist, and most certainly
> doesn't mean will never exist.
Fair enough, safety first!
> > > Note that operations like atomic_add_unless() already include memory
> > > barriers.
> >
> > And I don't see an atomic_add_unless_relaxed(), so we are good on this
> > one. So far, anyway! ;-)
>
> Not the point, add_unless() is a conditional operation, and therefore
> doesn't need to imply anything when failing.
Plus it doesn't return a pointer, so there is no problem with dereferences.
Unless someone wants to use its return value as an array index and rely
on dependency ordering to the array, but I would NAK that use case.
Thanx, Paul
