On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 07:55:39AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> [ +cc Paul McKenney ]
>
> On 01/06/2015 07:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:01:21AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 12:48:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Looking at that closure stuff, why is there an smp_mb() in
> >>> closure_wake_up() ? Typically wakeup only needs to imply a wmb.
> >>>
> >>> Also note that __closure_wake_up() starts with a fully serializing
> >>> instruction (xchg) and thereby already implies the full barrier.
> >>
> >> Probably no good reason, that code is pretty old :)
> >>
> >> If I was to hazard a guess, I had my own lockless linked lists before
> >> llist.h
> >> existed and perhaps I did it with atomic_xchg() - which was at least
> >> documented
> >> to not imply a barrier. I suppose it should just be dropped.
> >
> > We (probably me) should probably audit all the atomic_xchg()
> > implementations and documentation and fix that. I was very much under
> > the impression it should imply a full barrier (and it certainly does on
> > x86), the documentation should state the rule that any atomic_ function
> > that returns a result is fully serializing, therefore, because
> > atomic_xchg() has a return value, it should too.
>
> memory-barriers.txt and atomic_ops.txt appear to contradict each other here,
> but I think that's because atomic_ops.txt has drifted toward an
> arch-implementer's POV:
>
> 260:atomic_xchg requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
>
> All the serializing atomic operations have descriptions like this.
I am not seeing the contradiction.
You posted the relevant line from atomic_ops.txt. The relevant passage
from memory-barriers.txt is as follows:
Any atomic operation that modifies some state in memory and
returns information about the state (old or new) implies an
SMP-conditional general memory barrier (smp_mb()) on each side
of the actual operation (with the exception of explicit lock
operations, described later). These include:
xchg();
...
atomic_xchg(); atomic_long_xchg();
So it appears to me that both documents require full barriers before and
after any atomic exchange operation in SMP builds. Therefore, any
SMP-capable architecture that omits these barriers is buggy.
So, what am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
