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

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 10:59:06AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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).

OK, good.

> > 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.

Good as well.

> > > 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.

It is certainly less added overhead to make unlock-lock a full barrier
than it is to make smp_store_release()-smp_load_acquire() a full barrier.
I am not fully convinced on either, aside from needing some way to make
unlock-lock a full barrier within the RCU implementation, for which the
now-privatized smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() suffices.

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

;-)

							Thanx, Paul