Re: [RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 01:11:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:01:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The scenario is:
> > 
> > 	CPU0			CPU1
> > 
> > 				unlock(x)
> > 				  smp_store_release(&x->lock, 0);
> > 
> > 	unlock(y)
> > 	  smp_store_release(&next->lock, 1); /* next == &y */
> > 
> > 				lock(y)
> > 				  while (!(smp_load_acquire(&y->lock))
> > 					cpu_relax();
> > 
> > 
> > Where the lock does _NOT_ issue a store to acquire the lock at all. Now
> > I don't think any of our current primitives manage this, so we should be
> > good, but it might just be possible.
> 
> So with a bit more through this seems fundamentally impossible, you
> always needs some stores in a lock() implementation, the above for
> instance needs to queue itself, otherwise CPU0 will not be able to find
> it etc..

Which brings us back round to separating LOCK/UNLOCK from ACQUIRE/RELEASE.

If we say that UNLOCK(foo) -> LOCK(bar) is ordered but RELEASE(baz) ->
ACQUIRE(boz) is only ordered by smp_mb__release_acquire(), then I think
we're in a position where we can at least build arbitrary locks portably
out of ACQUIRE/RELEASE operations, even though I don't see any users of
that macro in the imminent future.

I'll have a crack at some documentation.

Will
--
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/