Re: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:24:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:09:50PM +0100, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > On 07/13/2015 08:15 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is used to promote an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence
> > > into a full memory barrier.
> > >
> > > However:
> > >
> > >   - This ordering guarantee is already provided without the barrier on
> > >     all architectures apart from PowerPC
> > >
> > >   - The barrier only applies to UNLOCK + LOCK, not general
> > >     RELEASE + ACQUIRE operations
> > 
> > I'm unclear what you mean here: do you mean
> > A) a memory barrier is not required between RELEASE M + ACQUIRE N when you
> >    want to maintain distinct order between those operations on all arches
> >    (with the possible exception of PowerPC), or,
> > B) no one is using smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in that way right now.
> 
> My understanding is (B), but Peter and I don't seem to agree yet!
> I'll tighten up the text once we reach a conclusion.

I'm fairly sure (but I've not looked) that nobody does in fact rely on
this.

So I'm in agreement with B, and I'm quibbling on what exactly A means
;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/