Re: [PATCH] btrfs: optimize barrier usage for Rmw atomics

[Qu Wenruo]

On 2020/1/30 äå3:25, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, David Sterba wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:03:24AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>> Use smp_mb__after_atomic() instead of smp_mb() and avoid the
>>> unnecessary barrier for non LL/SC architectures, such as x86.
>>
>> So that's a conflicting advice from what we got when discussing wich
>> barriers to use in 6282675e6708ec78518cc0e9ad1f1f73d7c5c53d and the
>> memory is still fresh. My first idea was to take the
>> smp_mb__after_atomic and __before_atomic variants and after discussion
>> with various people the plain smp_wmb/smp_rmb were suggested and used in
>> the end.
>
> So the patch you mention deals with test_bit(), which is out of the scope
> of smp_mb__{before,after}_atomic() as it's not a RMW operation.
> atomic_inc()
> and set_bit() are, however, meant to use these barriers.

Exactly!
I'm still not convinced to use full barrier for test_bit() and I see no
reason to use any barrier for test_bit().
All mb should only be needed between two or more memory access, thus mb
should sit between set/clear_bit() and other operations, not around
test_bit().

>
>>
>> I can dig the email threads and excerpts from irc conversations, maybe
>> Nik has them at hand too. We do want to get rid of all unnecessary and
>> uncommented barriers in btrfs code, so I appreciate your patch.
>
> Yeah, I struggled with the amount of undocumented barriers, and decided
> not to go down that rabbit hole. This patch is only an equivalent of
> what is currently there. When possible, getting rid of barriers is of
> course better.

BTW, is there any convincing method to do proper mb examination?

I really found it hard to convince others or even myself when mb is
involved.

Thanks,
Qu

>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr