Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] tools, perf: use smp_{rmb,mb} barriers instead of {rmb,mb}

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:00:46PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

On 10/18/2018 05:33 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 05:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:

quoted

 #endif /* _TOOLS_LINUX_ASM_IA64_BARRIER_H */

diff --git a/tools/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h b/tools/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
index a634da0..905a2c6 100644
--- a/tools/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/tools/arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h

@@ -27,4 +27,20 @@
 #define rmb()  __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory")
 #define wmb()  __asm__ __volatile__ ("sync" : : : "memory")

+#if defined(__powerpc64__)
+#define smp_lwsync()	__asm__ __volatile__ ("lwsync" : : : "memory")
+
+#define smp_store_release(p, v)			\
+do {						\
+	smp_lwsync();				\
+	WRITE_ONCE(*p, v);			\
+} while (0)
+
+#define smp_load_acquire(p)			\
+({						\
+	typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p);	\
+	smp_lwsync();				\
+	___p1;					\

I don't like this proliferation of asm.
Why do we think that we can do better job than compiler?
can we please use gcc builtins instead?
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
__atomic_load_n(ptr, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
__atomic_store_n(ptr, val, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
are done specifically for this use case if I'm not mistaken.
I think it pays to learn what compiler provides.

But are you sure the C11 memory model matches exact same model as kernel?
Seems like last time Will looked into it [0] it wasn't the case ...

I'm only suggesting equivalence of __atomic_load_n(ptr, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE)
with kernel's smp_load_acquire().
I've seen a bunch of user space ring buffer implementations implemented
with __atomic_load_n() primitives.
But let's ask experts who live in both worlds.

Paul,
what would you recommend?
Should we copy paste smp_store_release() from kernel to be used
in user space library/tools
or use __atomic_load_n() builtins instead?

The above was pulled in and slightly adapted from kernel side of arch
asm barriers. Hm, it would probably be safest if an arch decides to adapt
C11 barriers first from kernel side and user space could then use the
exact same matching builtin functions for scenarios like these as well.

  [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170308174300.GL20400@arm.com/ (local)