On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:56:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:44:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:38:50PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > Just wanted to call your attention to some pretty cool and pretty serious > > > litmus tests that Andrii did as part of his BPF ring-buffer work: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200517195727.279322-3-andr...@fb.com/ > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I find: > > > > smp_wmb() > > smp_store_release() > > > > a _very_ weird construct. What is that supposed to even do? > > Indeed, and I asked about that in my review of the patch containing the > code. It -could- make sense if there is a prior read and a later store: > > r1 = READ_ONCE(a); > WRITE_ONCE(b, 1); > smp_wmb(); > smp_store_release(&c, 1); > WRITE_ONCE(d, 1); > > So a->c and b->c is smp_store_release() and b->d is smp_wmb(). But if > there were only stores, the smp_wmb() would suffice. And if there wasn't > the trailing store, smp_store_release() would suffice.
But that wasn't the context in the litmus test. The context was: smp_wmb(); smp_store_release(); spin_unlock(); smp_store_release(); That certainly looks like a lot more ordering than is really needed. Alan