[RFC 3/5] powerpc: atomic: implement atomic{,64}_{add,sub}_return_* variants

[Will Deacon]

Hi Paul,

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:45:40PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 08:00:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Yes, the difference between RCpc and RCsc is in the meaning of RELEASE +
> > > ACQUIRE. With RCsc that implies a full memory barrier, with RCpc it does
> > > not.
> > 
> > We've discussed this before, but for the sake of completeness, I don't
> > think we're fully RCsc either because we don't order the actual RELEASE
> > operation again a subsequent ACQUIRE operation:
> > 
> > P0
> > smp_store_release(&x, 1);
> > foo = smp_load_acquire(&y);
> > 
> > P1
> > smp_store_release(&y, 1);
> > bar = smp_load_acquire(&x);
> > 
> > We allow foo == bar == 0, which is prohibited by SC.
> 
> I certainly hope that no one expects foo == bar == 0 to be prohibited!!!

I just thought it was worth making this point, because it is prohibited
in SC and I don't want people to think that our RELEASE/ACQUIRE operations
are SC (even though they happen to be on arm64).

> On the other hand, in this case, foo == bar == 1 will be prohibited:
> 
> P0
> foo = smp_load_acquire(&y);
> smp_store_release(&x, 1);
> 
> P1
> bar = smp_load_acquire(&x);
> smp_store_release(&y, 1);

Agreed.

> > However, we *do* enforce ordering on any prior or subsequent accesses
> > for the code snippet above (the release and acquire combine to give a
> > full barrier), which makes these primitives well suited to things like
> > message passing.
> 
> If I understand your example correctly, neither x86 nor Power implement
> a full barrier in this case.  For example:
> 
> 	P0
> 	WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
> 	smp_store_release(b, 1);
> 	r1 = smp_load_acquire(c);
> 	r2 = READ_ONCE(d);
> 
> 	P1
> 	WRITE_ONCE(d, 1);
> 	smp_mb();
> 	r3 = READ_ONCE(a);
> 
> Both x86 and Power can reorder P0 as follows:
> 
> 	P0
> 	r1 = smp_load_acquire(c);
> 	r2 = READ_ONCE(d);
> 	WRITE_ONCE(a, 1);
> 	smp_store_release(b, 1);
> 
> Which clearly shows that the non-SC outcome r2 == 0 && r3 == 0 is allowed.
> 
> Or am I missing your point here?

I think this example is slightly different. Having the RELEASE/ACQUIRE
operations being reordered with respect to each other is one thing, but
I thought we were heading in a direction where they combined to give a
full barrier with respect to other accesses. In that case, the reordering
above would be forbidden.

Peter -- if the above reordering can happen on x86, then moving away
from RCpc is going to be less popular than I hoped...

Will