Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] srcu: Force full grace-period ordering

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:12:03PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:54:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:35:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> >> > > + */
> >> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC
> >> > > +#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()	smp_mb()  /* Full ordering for lock. */
> >> > > +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
> >> > > +#define smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()	do { } while (0)
> >> > > +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PPC */
> >> > 
> >> > Yeah, so I realize that this was pre-existing code, but putting CONFIG_$ARCH
> >> > #ifdefs into generic headers is generally frowned upon.
> >> > 
> >> > The canonical approach would be either to define a helper Kconfig variable that 
> >> > can be set by PPC (but other architectures don't need to set it), or to expose a 
> >> > suitable macro (function) for architectures to define in their barrier.h arch 
> >> > header file.
> >> 
> >> Very well, I will add a separate commit for this.  4.11 OK?
> >
> > Does the patch below seem reasonable?
> >
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > commit 271c0601237c41a279f975563e13837bace0df03
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Sat Jan 14 13:32:50 2017 -0800
> >
> >     rcu: Make arch select smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() strength
> >     
> >     The definition of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() is currently smp_mb()
> >     for CONFIG_PPC and a no-op otherwise.  It would be better to instead
> >     provide an architecture-selectable Kconfig option, and select the
> >     strength of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() based on that option.  This
> >     commit therefore creates CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELACQ, has PPC select it,
> >     and bases the definition of smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() on this new
> >     CONFIG_ARCH_WEAK_RELACQ Kconfig option.
> >     
> >     Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
> >     Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
> >     Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >     Cc: <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Personally I'd call it ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE, which is longer but
> clearer I think. But it's not a big deal, so which ever you prefer.

ARCH_WEAK_RELEASE_ACQUIRE it is!

> Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Applied, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul