Re: [RFC v2 5/7] powerpc: atomic: Implement cmpxchg{,64}_* and atomic{,64}_cmpxchg_* variants

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:36:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:49:33PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Unlike other atomic operation variants, cmpxchg{,64}_acquire and
> > > atomic{,64}_cmpxchg_acquire don't have acquire semantics if the cmp part
> > > fails, so we need to implement these using assembly.
> > 
> > I think that is actually expected and documented. That is, a cmpxchg
> > only implies barriers on success. See:
> > 
> >   ed2de9f74ecb ("locking/Documentation: Clarify failed cmpxchg() memory ordering semantics")
> 
> Also:
> 
> 654672d4ba1a6 (Will Deacon     2015-08-06 17:54:37 +0100  28)  * store portion of the operation. Note that a failed cmpxchg_acquire
> 654672d4ba1a6 (Will Deacon     2015-08-06 17:54:37 +0100  29)  * does -not- imply any memory ordering constraints.

What C11 does is to allow the developer to specify different orderings
on success and failure.  But it is no harder to supply a barrier (if
needed) on the failure path, right?

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/