lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2] memory-barriers: remove smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
From
Date
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 08:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 13:15 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock is used to promote an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence
> > into a full memory barrier.
> >
> > However:
> >
> > - This ordering guarantee is already provided without the barrier on
> > all architectures apart from PowerPC
> >
> > - The barrier only applies to UNLOCK + LOCK, not general
> > RELEASE + ACQUIRE operations
> >
> > - Locks are generally assumed to offer SC ordering semantics, so
> > having this additional barrier is error-prone and complicates the
> > callers of LOCK/UNLOCK primitives
> >
> > - The barrier is not well used outside of RCU and, because it was
> > retrofitted into the kernel, it's not clear whether other areas of
> > the kernel are incorrectly relying on UNLOCK + LOCK implying a full
> > barrier
> >
> > This patch removes the barrier and instead requires architectures to
> > provide full barrier semantics for an UNLOCK + LOCK sequence.
> >
> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
> > Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > ---
> >
> > This didn't go anywhere last time I posted it, but here it is again.
> > I'd really appreciate some feedback from the PowerPC guys, especially as
> > to whether this change requires them to add an additional barrier in
> > arch_spin_unlock and what the cost of that would be.
>
> We'd have to turn the lwsync in unlock or the isync in lock into a full
> barrier. As it is, we *almost* have a full barrier semantic, but not
> quite, as in things can get mixed up inside spin_lock between the LL and
> the SC (things leaking in past LL and things leaking "out" up before SC
> and then getting mixed up in there).
>
> Michael, at some point you were experimenting a bit with that and tried
> to get some perf numbers of the impact that would have, did that
> solidify ? Otherwise, I'll have a look when I'm back next week.

I was mainly experimenting with replacing the lwsync in lock with an isync.

But I think you're talking about making it a full sync in lock.

That was about +7% on p8, +25% on p7 and +88% on p6.

We got stuck deciding whether isync was safe to use as a memory barrier,
because the wording in the arch is a bit vague.

But if we're talking about a full sync then I think there is no question that's
OK and we should just do it.

cheers




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-15 05:21    [W:0.198 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site