On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 03:43:33PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:32:59PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Mostly because of the comments in include/linux/atomic.h:
> >
> > * For compound atomics performing both a load and a store, ACQUIRE
> > * semantics apply only to the load and RELEASE semantics only to the
> > * store portion of the operation. Note that a failed cmpxchg_acquire
> > * does -not- imply any memory ordering constraints.
> >
> > so I thought only the barrier in cmpxchg_acquire() is conditional, and
> > the barrier in cmpxchg_release() is not. Maybe we'd better call it out
> > that cmpxchg *family* doesn't have any order guarantee if cmp fails, as
> > a complement of
> >
> > ed2de9f74ecb ("locking/Documentation: Clarify failed cmpxchg() memory
> > ordering semantics")
> >
> > Because it seems this commit only claims that the barriers in fully
> > ordered version are conditional.
>
> I didn't think this was ambiguous... A failed cmpxchg_release doesn't
> perform a store, so because the RELEASE semantics only apply to the
> store portion of the operation, it therefore doesn't have any ordering
> guarantees. Acquire is called out as a special case because it *does*
> actually perform a load on the failure case.
> Make sense. > > If cmpxchg_release doesn't have order guarantee when failed, I guess I > > can implement it with a barrier in the middle as you mentioned: > > > > unsigned int prev; > > > > __asm__ __volatile__ ( > > "1: lwarx %0,0,%2 > > cmpw 0,%0,%3\n\ > > bne- 2f\n" > > PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER > > " stwcx. %4,0,%2\n\ > > bne- 1b" > > "\n\ > > 2:" > > : "=&r" (prev), "+m" (*p) > > : "r" (p), "r" (old), "r" (new) > > : "cc", "memory"); > > > > return prev; > > > > > > However, I need to check whether the architecture allows this and any > > other problem exists. > > > > Besides, I don't think it's a good idea to do the "put barrier in the > > middle" thing in this patchset, because that seems a premature > > optimization and if we go further, I guess we can also replace the > > PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER above with a "sync" to implement a fully ordered > > version cmpxchg(). Too much needs to investigate then.. > > Putting a barrier in the middle of that critical section is probably a > terrible idea, and that's why I thought you were avoiding it (hence my The fact is that I haven't thought of that way to implement cmpxchg_release before you ask that question ;-) And I'm not going to do that for now and probably not in the future. > original question). Perhaps just add a comment to that effect, since I Are you suggesting if I put a barrier in the middle I'd better to add a comment, right? So if I don't do that, it's OK to let this patch as it. Regards, Boqun > fear adding more words to memory-barriers.txt is just likely to create > further confusion. > > Will
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
