Re: [RFC] arch: Introduce new TSO memory barrier smp_tmb()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2013-11-03 20:01:53
Also in:
lkml
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 10:08:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 06:40:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:quoted
If there was an smp_tmb(), I would likely use it in rcu_assign_pointer().Well, I'm obviously all for introducing this new barrier, for it will reduce a full mfence on x86 to a compiler barrier. And ppc can use lwsync as opposed to sync afaict. Not sure ARM can do better. --- Subject: arch: Introduce new TSO memory barrier smp_tmb()This is specialized enough that I would *really* like the name to be more descriptive. Compare to the special "smp_read_barrier_depends()" maco: it's unusual, and it has very specific semantics, so it gets a long and descriptive name. Memory ordering is subtle enough without then using names that are subtle in themselves. mb/rmb/wmb are conceptually pretty simple operations, and very basic when talking about memory ordering. "acquire" and "release" are less simple, but have descriptive names and have very specific uses in locking. In contrast "smp_tmb()" is a *horrible* name, because TSO is a description of the memory ordering, not of a particular barrier. It's also not even clear that you can have a "tso barrier", since the ordering (like acquire/release) presumably is really about one particular *store*, not about some kind of barrier between different operations. So please describe exactly what the semantics that barrier has, and then name the barrier that way. I assume that in this particular case, the semantics RCU wants is "write barrier, and no preceding reads can move past this point". Calling that "smp_tmb()" is f*cking insane, imnsho.
Fair enough; from what I could gather the proposed semantics are RELEASE+WMB, such that neither reads not writes can cross over, writes can't cross back, but reads could. Since both RELEASE and WMB are trivial under TSO the entire thing collapses. Now I'm currently completely confused as to what C/C++ wrecks vs actual proper memory order issues; let alone fully comprehend the case that started all this.